




































































.9* s'"'" ° 



^ ^ r 

> \^ V" ^ c; - ••/•■(» # n X ^<* * 

Q~ ^ . K ' J v* ^C.’ r^ ^ ^ a <-* V N>3‘~' * a \ 

^ *> N 0 \V ^ * g i A * ^ <V 

V * * * «* > o^ s ^ * '* % \> v * ,. 

- — 





* ^ l '<r^' J 4 " .V 

O, y 0 * X * . 0 V ^ ** , ' s’ 

O .*>* C» N ■■ * •% **' ,x\' 

c c ' -V j* * v 

& '- - ->v >* 


: ■r’V 



c. /> 



Co 

• 

oV 

' S \ A , fl ^ . y o * X * ^0 < '' ^ 

1 * s °o 




$°s. 


o o X ® 1 A V 

v^r>.v»-*>°> : -;v ,T, vV.>N-'*. 




'' .9 





%. '•.*,* jy <A. ., , 

9-i ,*o v c 0 N c « ^ ^ . * 

^ « K ■ ': ^\\^% ' '^P 

o 0 X 




- % ^ * ° o° ^ W ^ ^ 

vy ^ •// - ; - - p ^ v ^SoSvvh^k ^ 

* > l |p%; v f * O0 x 

> N^ ^ * e: *07l))W ^ 

a 

^ O h o v^' ^ i t» h0 ^ 

*.^ V'»'**#■ 

v *9 - a\m/%. = <%.$ o j=p|3| - ^ ^ 

c° v '.‘ c ‘ *,V J * *' >' 'v* ‘'*/V 0,i% .0^°". <*' 

\V ^ ^ ^ ° r ‘ * -S^CVv ^ " 

V 0 O *> ■‘•V ^ 

ft ^ , OZ//H) W n A ^r. ^ • • • - . ^ o o?' ^^yy/fi\ '*& ^ 

\ ,: ' ,a ’ * * <p <?b '*''"•&£*<■' «> ■% **-| 

-A r s. X/ \* ^ u ^ O v 

.TV \ iMOM. " ^ 







V 

^ * / " ' ' ’ \ A ^ C> O ' 

'****'<£ /'*< ° * X ^ o N c 

jN 

^ V- V? " MAW/sPC? ' .v v 

O 0 X 





i°°* 


y. ■■' 


2! 

♦, •% V 

o' : ^ /' / 

, , v 0 ^ !-W^ = 

a^' 'V \y^:/; a»% : 

O */ n 

</. 0 ^ <0 

0 V C 0 s 0 * '<* 






^ » 


*° ; 




-0 o 


‘ ^ ^ ^'■: v '"L’-'|/-r , 

- % s. 0 , -> «i> v .f s .. -/ 

‘A 

^ - s' %5r H ": ° i> s % 

c5>A. - Vti’i'Q-.,•' .- aW„ 


v' . ' * 0 a > ' 


// 


























u + S 




. V * 


* * S . V _ V I 8 . 

* A A A <j> 

^J- ** „!• ’ ■>» <* 

\° * V — '■ "' ■ * 4 ^ 

‘ ^ ^ % p ' ' . V csP, 

>• ,..,V»,'; r>*>\,.\./' 

5' s '// C* V > ,0' .'V^* C‘ \> *>*o A 

. i V- <^v . ^ ■%• v ■• c: t i v . ^ .v 

, ’ $ %■ ^ v '\ . 

?/„ 7 0 * V. * ^6 A/ I s s V A y 0 * x * <G << ' */ K ^ s 

^ c o> ,c '■ *, ^ .«’; * *, % o'* ,<■'•.:'■•/%" A 

: W •*> .V. ^ > .*•/,-.- W <= .. ,;-4■: ^ ^ 

- .* V,' ^ \ 

$T -cP c i> • 

*>• ° '•%• % v •• ,^Sfe ; \ .<$> 

X 



V 





q5 X 

''b ^ » ‘1* ^ ** *^ r \ f\ 



\ 0o -<. 






X' ^y> O ^ /V<f\ 

' A ^ 


^ A 


^ v- l i'< 


C.V ' * « 

aN ' M ' + 

^ *t V ^ ^ 0 /■ ^ / 1 ^ \j * *< * o 

% ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' A> . A a 

: ^ <$' : y ,,\ \ • ^ ^ ^ ^ 

s $ ^ - livjf « A>> ** o ; ,v- ^ ^ 

v> 

v ° * ‘ v & ^ m* A*!' • * 4 > A v So 0 • 4 y\ «' ■ ,;v' * * 

_t "“O' .-MHU. 




; o x ; , 

\~y~v ’ v u< ?<- .5 -n«- 

,„„ *>. ».M*'i° ,.., / V fc »;,-,*'A°- 

V , 'j-^ 0 / x ,C s ' // c.> V^'* 0 /- ^ .O s 


.0 c 


*> < 


/ ft ,s s "' i*\ . „ y o\^A°’ N C * 

0 c ° ’ C ♦ <^6 








^ 0 A 








cP* J, , * ' Ar . O. 

_'*. c : 





v ^e. 

Y * 0 ' ^ f ^ 



v 5 

fi/ vs. ■> 

A vf 

v Ac**, V* 
^ - v ' - ^ 
= o5 ^ * r ^S--S > J 1 ^ 

> \v <*. 4 - r ; /,.. Jr ^ 

.# % % . ' .-V 

-, ,i, . r ., V/-'' -e- & * v 

^ * m&M, \ %<? <■ 

" A^' V = 




a'iiiii|iri!w> 


















































































































































* 





















































































































































REFLECTIONS 


UPON THE LATE CORR,ESPONDENCE 


BETWEEN 


MR. SECRETARY SMITH, 


AND 


FRANCIS JAMES JACKSON, ESQ 


MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY 


OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY. 


Originally published in the Federal Republican of Baltimore . 



BALTIMORE *. 

PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR. 

Benjamin Edes....Printer. 



1810 . 









REFLECTIONS. 


Upon few subjects of national concern have errone¬ 
ous impressions been so universally entertained, as upon the 
late negociation with mr. Jackson. Deception the most 
consummate, and misrepresentations foul and disreputable, 
have even bewildered and misled federalists of rank and dis¬ 
tinction. Such an extraordinary occurrence is attributable, 
alone, to the machiavelian arts, and masterly management of 
the skilful jugglers in politicks who direct the government 
of our country. 

Holding in their own hands the testimony which must 
ultimately regulate publick opinion, and apprehending 
that a fair and equitable developement of facts would pro¬ 
duce their own condemnation, all their engines have been 
set at work to forestal publick opinion, by creating first and 
false impressions. Fortunately for the honour and security 
of our country, arts so vile, and practices so baleful, have 
had but a temporary effect. The delusion is passing off as 
the falsehoods which produce it are discovered. The mo¬ 
tives of our ministers are at length discerned, and from the 
progress of publick sentiment, it cannot be doubted, that the 
impostors who have conspired against the true interests and 
happiness of these states, must soon experience the mortifi¬ 
cation and disgrace, of being abandoned by every honest 
man in the community. 





4 


All the documents relating to the rupture of the late ne- 
gociation and the dismission of the british minister, being 
now before the publick, it is a duty especially enjoined upon 
ever } 7 friend to his country, critically to investigate the causes 
leading to this lamentable issue, which the advocates of liber¬ 
ty throughout the globe may yet have occasion to bewail. 

Upon examining the correspondence between the diplo- 
matick functionaries of the two governments, there is not a 
man in the country who, bearing in mind the cause of dis¬ 
missal originally avowed, will not be able promptly and cor¬ 
rectly to decide upon its merits. While the letters of the 
british minister are to be admired for their energy of style 
and elegance of diction, they are plain and intelligible and 
well adapted to the meanest capacity. All classes of citizens 
may peruse them with a perfect confidence of thoroughly 
comprehending the subjects to which they relate, so far as 
the mysterious policy and oblique views of this government 
are susceptible of explanation. If, after a scrupulous and 
minute examination of the documents appertaining to mr. 
Jackson’s dismissal, the dark sinuosities of our cabinet’s 
politicks are not glaringly exposed, it will be ascribable to the 
reader’s blindness or stupidity, not the awkwardness of the 
diplomatist. 

In our “ Reflections” upon mr. Jackson’s dismissal, we 
mean to examine as thoroughly as may be, the documents 
before the publick, and more particularly the secretary of 
state’s despatch to mr. Pinkney, which was published in this 
country as soon as, if not before, it was forwarded to our 
minister in England, tending thereby to aggravate the dif¬ 
ficulties, multiply the embarrassments, and to heighten the 
delicacy of his intercourse with the ministry of England, if 
forsooth, it was expected that he would be permitted to con¬ 
tinue in the exercise of his diplomatick functions. 

By the publication of the instructions 'to mr. Pinkney, 
those diplomatick usages assented to and practised under by 
all well regulated governments from time immemorial, were 




5 


violated. The letter itself abounds with fallacies and misre¬ 
presentations vitally affecting the character of our cabinet for 
veracity, and placing the reputation of the american govern¬ 
ment in a light which every friend of his country must feel 
abashed to view. We shall be able before our animadver¬ 
sions upon this letter are brought to a close, not only to dis¬ 
play in strong colours the manifest injustice and impropriety 
of the procedure, but to satisfy every impartial reader that 
our cabinet has been guilty of a flagrant departure from truth 
as well as custom. 

We shall not deny that there existed inducements too 
tempting to be resisted, to submit this document to the con¬ 
sideration of the people, before it was received by our mi¬ 
nister at the court of St. James. Mr. Madison had too much 
penetration not to foresee that the decision of the american 
people would be against their faithless rulers, unless the cor¬ 
respondence should be accompanied by an insidious and in¬ 
flammatory appeal to their passions and their prejudices.'—He 
was conscious that the case made out and presented to their 
consideration in the correspondence between mr. Smith and 
mr. Jackson, could not fail to bring odium upon the execu¬ 
tive ; and knowing that the lips of the dismissed minister 
were hermetrically sealed, he resolved to issue his manifesto , 
not only containing an artful address to the angry passions of 
his own fellow citizens, but an appeal to the English people 
fraught with invidious allusions to their own government. 
But this, and various other objections of great weight and 
importance will be more properly reserved, until suggested 
in the proper order of investigation. 

That a government professedly jealous of its reputation 
for veracity, should publish, in the shape of an instruction 
to one of its foreign ministers, a statement of which it, at the 
same time supplies the means of detecting its untruth, implies 
so strong a reliance upon the power of passionate misrepre¬ 
sentation over the minds of the people, as to render it, if not 
unsafe, apparently vain to speak to them in the language of 




6 


sober truth and reason. Falsehood may obtain a momentary 
triumph, but truth has so often survived the ebullitions of 
passion, and confounded the best efforts of prevarication, 
that it is the duty of every good citizen, who is not overcome 
by clamour or abashed by the audacity of french partizans , 
to expose to his fellow countrymen the artifices of the hypo¬ 
crite, and the ignorance of those who serve him. We must 
no longer be misled by the delusive hope that with the end 
of Jefferson’s reign, Jefferson’s maxims and Jefferson’s mea¬ 
sures were no more to embarrass and oppress the country— 
The ruinous policy of this infatuated leader of a faction, is 
about to return upon us with invigorated influence, and thank 
God, in the worst of times, men have been found with firm¬ 
ness and consistency to stay the torrent of popular prejudice 
-—men who at all hazards will avail themselves of the right 
given by their laws and constitution, to hold up to publick 
scorn and detestation the shuffling conduct of political jugglers. 

The first assertion made by mr. Smith in his letter to mr. 
Pinkney, is contained in the first sentence of the letter. In 
these words : 

“ My letters in the correspondence with mr. Jackson, al¬ 
ready transmitted to you, sufficiently evince the disappoint¬ 
ment that was felt, on finding that he had not been charged 
to make to the government either the frank explanations or 
the liberal propositions -which the occasion required 

When two men of only ordinary understandings, employ 
interviews of several hours each for the express purpose of 
discussing and explaining a subject, and one of them then 
says that no explanation has taken place, such an assertion, 
if made by a third person, would be considered as convey¬ 
ing a strong impeachment, either of his veracity or his in¬ 
tellect. But if the discussions then assumed (no matter 
from what motive) a written form, and the explanations pre¬ 
viously given are renewed and enlarged upon, what will be 
thought of that man’s boldness and his regard for veracity, 
who thus, in the face of evidence furnished by himself, again 


7 


asserts that no explanation had taken place- Such a man, 
is mr. secretary Smith, lately an attorney at the bar of Bal¬ 
timore. In his letter to mr. Pinkney of the twenty-third of 
november, he positively asserts that no explanations had been 
made, when a letter supposed to be written by himself, on 
the first of the same month, contains the following para¬ 
graph. 

“ Tet as the explanation has at length been made , it only 
remains, as to that part of the disavowed arrangement, to 
regret that such considerations should have been allowed to 
outweigh the solid objections to the disavowal.” 

The explanation may not have been satisfactory, yet if 
mr. Smith is to be believed, it was made anterior to the first 
of november, notwithstanding he admits the fact on that day 
and denies it on the twenty-third of the same month. As 
to its not having been frank, there is the strongest evidence 
in the correspondence, of mr. Jackson’s having given the 
same explanation, verbally, in his first interview with the 
secretary, which he afterwards committed to writing. But 
it is always to be remembered that the said secretary profes¬ 
ses so bad memory, and of this statesman-like qualification, 
he does in fact appear frequently to have occasion to take 
advantage. 

But as to the liberal propositions that were expected from 
the british minister, it should not be forgotten that, those 
which mr. Erskine was charged to make, and about which 
so much clamour has been since raised, did in fact originate 
with the american government. The proof of this fact is to 
be found in mr. Erskine’s letter to mr. Smith of the four¬ 
teenth of august. This letter is competent testimony to 
prove a fact against the administration, because it is referred 
to by mr. Smith himself to substantiate facts in his own be¬ 
half.-—Mr. Erskine asserts positively in this letter that he 
was given to understand that, if England revoked her 
orders in council, this country would keep in force the non¬ 
intercourse in regard to France. No matter in what shape 



8 


or form, or by what authority, whether that of congress or 
of the president, but such was the naked proposition made 
to him, and transmitted by him to his government. It was 
upon this offer voluntarily made by messrs. Madison, Galla¬ 
tin and Smith, the instructions of twenty-third of january 
were predicated and the conditions in these instructions pre¬ 
scribed. If the change in the aspect of european affairs 
induced our cabinet to repent of the terms proposed and to 
retract their offer, instead of taking airs upon the occasion, 
they should at least have discovered some modesty and for¬ 
bearance upon their refusal to comply with a bargain, the 
conditions of which originated with themselves. 

The second point, that of renouncing during the present 
war, the colonial trade, from which the United States are 
excluded in time of peace, was suggested to mr. Erskine by 
mr. Gallatin. He said to mr. Erskine u that he knew that 
it was intended by the United States to abandon the attempt 
to carry on a trade with the colonies of belligerents in time of 
war which was not allowed in time of peace , and to trust to 
their being permitted by the french to carry on such a trade 
in peace, so as to entitle them to a continuance of it in time 
of war.” This piece of testimony is also extracted from 
mr. Erskine’s letter of the fourteenth of august, admitted by 
mr. secretary Smith to be good authority. 

Here then is another important suggestion thrown out by 
one of the members of our cabinet, and in consequence sent 
to England for the consideration of the british government. 

The third is admitted to have been started in England, 
and was acquiesced in by mr. Pinkney. Not only so, but 
mr. Smith, touching this point made the following remarks 
to mr. Erskine, “ you added what had great weight in my 
mind, that you did not see why any great importance should 
be attached to such a recognition, because it would be impos¬ 
sible that a citizen of the United States could prefer a com¬ 
plaint to his government, on account of the capture of his 
vessels while engaged in a trade absolutely interdicted by 




9 


the laws of his country.”—And yet mr. Smith now professes 
to feel such a lively sensibility to the nation’s honour, that he 
bounces at the bare suggestion that the navy of England is 
to enforce a law of the United States. And yet, notwith¬ 
standing mr. Pinkney’s acquiescence, he now says, or mr. 
Smith says for him, that his meaning was mistaken ; but he 
no where pretends to say that he protested against the idea 
as offensive, or called it an attempt to execute, by the british 
navy, a law of congress. This version has been ingeniously 
adopted here since it has been found convenient for the pur¬ 
pose of rousing the sensibilities of the people, and to excite 
them against England, and yet we may presume that mr. 
Pinkney understands the rights and constitution of his coun¬ 
try, full as well as Robert Smith, and ought to understand 
them better than the english ministry. 

Here then are the three tremendous propositions, two of 
which were actually suggested by our own government, and 
the third assented to by our own minister plenipotentiary in 
England. Being thrown into the shape of an instruction by 
mr. Canning, they are declared to be inadmissible and offen¬ 
sive, and the mere presentation of them by the british minis¬ 
ter for foreign affairs, has brought upon him the charge of 
indecorum . These are mr. Smith’s words : w In urging it , 
Mr. Canning has taken a ground forbidden by those principles 
of decorum which regulate and mark the proceedings of go¬ 
vernments towards each other” This indecorous remark has 
been made by mr. Smith since the change of ministry in 
England, and is a mean and contemptible mode of gratify¬ 
ing an old resentment against a minister who so well under¬ 
stood the interest and honour of his sovereign. 

But let us for the sake of the argument grant the whole 
enchainment of their argument. Let us suppose that mr. 
Erskine, did misunderstand mr. Madison, mr. Gallatin, and 
his good friend mr. Smith. In consequence he sent to Eng¬ 
land an erroneous statement of their sentiments. Mr. Can¬ 
ning adopts his error and under such erroneous impressions 
B 



10 


writes his famous instructions of the twenty-third of janua- 
ry. Upon the receipt of mr. Erskine’s arrangement, the 
mistake is discovered, and he sees that in his anxiety to 
gratify the american government by removing the orders in 
council, he has proposed something for that purpose, which 
although it came originally from themselves, they now de¬ 
clare to be inadmissible and offensive . What does mr. Can¬ 
ning then ? Does he insist upon these offensive terms ? Does 
he make them a sine qua non for holding any further com¬ 
munication with Robert Smith ? No-—he simply says, “ we 
have been under a mistake—either you did not explain your¬ 
self Avell, or we misunderstood you. This is not what you 
wished for—but we are still desirous of coming to terms 
with you; be so good as to let us know what it is you really 
want, and we will see if it be possible to agree to it.” 

Such (reduced to familiar language) is the sum and sub¬ 
stance of mr. Jackson’s overture gathered from his letters, 
and of the liberal propositions which Robert Smith says he 
did not make. 

But as it is by a quibble that mr. Madison and mr. Smith 
both flatter themselves to get round the charge of misrepre¬ 
sentation in solemnly declaring that mr. Jackson was not 
authorised to substitute any propositions to take place of the 
arrangement disavowed, it ought to be remembered that it 
was not England, that jirst made propositions to get rid of the 
orders in council . She never pretended to be otherwise than 
well satisfied with them. It was our government that com¬ 
plained of them, and made proposals for their removal. If 
therefore those proposals fail, especially if it be on her side 
they fail, we, and not England, are bound to substitute other 
“ liberal propositions ” in lieu of them. But if we do not, 
has England complained and by means the most unjustifiable 
attempted to excite a fermentation against this country, and 
throw their actual relations both commercial and political, 
into a state of inflammatory confusion ? No—England says 
through her minister, “ if you are no longer satisfied with 



11 


terms of your own proposing, it is well, you cannot blame 
us for it. We like our orders in council—let things remain 
as they are. We are only brought back to the point from 
which we started when mr. Erskine proceeded to make his 
unauthorised arrangement.” This is what mr. secretary 
Smith calls an endeavour to resume the arrangement of april. 

Now if this language of the british minister has any mean¬ 
ing, it is that he wished to resume that subject, only so 
far as it might suit the views of this country. If we chose 
not to resume it, but to increase the difficulties already ex¬ 
isting between the two governments, the british minister was 
of course well satisfied to let things remain as they are, viz. 
to leave in force both the orders in council and the non¬ 
intercourse act. 

It is this indifference, probably, that constitutes the essence 
of his offence—Of the manner of his committing it, as de¬ 
picted by secretary Smith, we shall hereafter speak. In the 
mean time, we again earnestly entreat those who undertake 
to decide upon the merits of the negociation, and enter into 
vehement debates without understanding the subject, to read 
the correspondence with that attention, which the subject 
certainly deserves. 




12 


NUMBER II. 

Mr. secretary Smith, in his extraordinary despatch to 
mr. Pinkney, betrays the real matter of offence given to our 
government by the british minister, to consist in his wish, 44 to 
bring into discussion the object of the april arrangement, in 
a way that would imply that we were aware that it was 
not binding on his government.” This implication is the 
sum total of his offence, though many improper and irrele¬ 
vant allusions have been brought in aid of the charge. 

That the idea and dread of such an implication, should 
be uppermost in the guilty minds of those who knew that 
they had seen the whole of mr. Erskine’s numbered despatch, 
and who were afraid of being detected in an untruth and in 
a base act of duplicity and seduction towards unsuspecting 
innocence, is most natural. But let us enquire whether this 
u implication,” this 44 gross insinuation,” is any where to be 
found in mr. Jackson’s letters. 

If the misconduct, of which Robert Smith is suspected—. 
and the more suspected from his over anxiety to clear him¬ 
self of the suspicion; if the official proof of this treason to 
both countries, of having concluded with mr. Erskine, an 
arrangement, with the knowledge, that his instructions did 
not authorise it, is to be found any where, it is in the fact 
of his having communicated to the secretary of state his in¬ 
structions in extenso. If this was done, no other evidence 
need be adduced of secretary Smith’s guilt. How then does 
mr. Jackson treat this point? In his first letter, he says, it 
was not, on his leaving England, known 44 whether mr. Ers- 
“ bine had, according to the liberty allowed him, commu- 
** nicated to you in extenso his original instructions.—It 
“ now appears that he did not.” Here then is a complete 
acquitta} of the offensive charge which he is supposed to 




13 


have brought: an acquittal that would have satisfied any but 
a guilty conscience. It matters not whether mr. Jackson, 
really believed in the negative, of what he thus subscribed, 
it may even reasonably be supposed, if we allow him but a 
moderate share of penetration, that he did—but he took the 
assurance of the secretary of state as it was given, and as 
one to which he was bound officially, whatever his private 
opinion might be, to give credit. He thus expresses him¬ 
self : “ As you declare that the despatch was not communi- 
4t cated in extenso , I must suppose it was not.” Had he 
meant to offend, or to give the lie to our government, as 
has been falsely asserted, would he have held this language? 
Had he even wished to prove upon them the fact of which 
they were so suspiciously anxious to clear themselves, would 
he have pronounced this unequivocal acquittal ? Certainly 
not. He appears only desirous of stating what mr. Erskine’s 
instructions really were, in order to prove, by showing how 
far they had been violated, that his government had a right 
to disavow the arrangement. How could he do this more 
pertinently than by referring to what the secretary of state 
himself declared that he knew of mr. Erskine’s instructions. 
By his own confession, the three conditions were made 
known to him, and to them mr. Jackson always refers, not 
by implication, but specijicctlly . He says, you knew the 
conditions; compare them with what was done, and you 
will at once see how the instructions were violated. Had he 
meant to make a gross insinuation he might have referred 
to something that secretary Smith was, or pretended to be 
ignorant of. He might have maintained that he knew some¬ 
thing which he professed not to know, and was important 
to be concealed. Had mr. Jackson’s object been to insult, 
he would have done this, instead of always bringing him 
back to what mr. Smith himself confessed he did know. He 
could therefore, mean only what was the obvious and una¬ 
voidable purport of his assertion; and none but a guilty con¬ 
science, would have been so strenuous in requiring ol him. 
to unsay that which he had not saidc 



14 


As to the responsibility of the british government for the 
disavowal, it appears no where to have been denied. On 
the contrary, it was admitted, and acted upon by the british 
secretary of state, both in his communications with our mi¬ 
nister at London, and in his instructions, first to mr. Ers- 
kine, and afterwards to mr. Jackson. Through each of 
these channels did our government receive full and ample 
explanations of the disavowal—explanations such as they 
ought to have foreborn to demand, conscious as they were, 
that they had seduced a weak minister to an act which they 
knew was contrary to the interest, the honour and the in¬ 
tention of his government. As to the frankness of those ex¬ 
planations voluntarily given in the first instance, and after¬ 
wards repeated, nothing could exceed them.-—As soon as 
the news reached England, mr. Canning communicated in 
extenso to mr. Pinkney, his original instruction to mr. Ers- 
kine. Our minister was also unreservedly informed of every 
thing that bore upon the then state of the case, and mr. 
Jackson came, as he offered to prove to our government by 
exhibiting his power, fully prepared to enter into every part 
of it, and it will not be denied, actually employed several 
hours in explaining to our government the motives of what 
had been done by his own. But still this was not sufficient. 
Something more was required of him. He was still asked 
for explanations, as if none had been given. If the truth 
were known, it is more than probable that our cabinet was 
weak enough to expect an apology. We take it for granted 
that whatever may have been the individual wish of mr. 
Jackson upon this subject, his government did not authorise 
him to apologize, inasmuch as they were justified by the laws 
of nations and the principles of justice in disavowing the un¬ 
authorised act of their agent. As to the explanations, we 
repeat that even the narrow intellects of secretary Smith 
must have recognized the motives of the disavowal. The 
framers of that arrangement might have considered them 
insufficient, but it can hardly be said that they were not ve¬ 
ry clearly and unequivocally specified. 




15 


Secretary Smith says it was thought best, in the first in¬ 
stance w to repel his observations argumentatively.” And 
what pray are the arguments he adduces in reply to mr. 
Jackson ? Why that his declaration of mr. Canning’s des¬ 
patch being the only despatch in which the conditions were 
prescribed to mr. Erskine was then made for the first time . 
And what is there surprising or objectionable in this ? Who 
would have ever thought of making such a declaration until it 
was asserted that mr. Erskine had been furnished with double 
instructions, and until it was attempted to rest upon so gross 
a fabrication a charge of the most infamous nature against 
the british government. And after all, what was there in 
this declaration and counter declaration of the two parties 
that could be construed into an offence .'’-—They might have 
been both true, and yet of a nature not to give umbrage to 
either party. Where then is the insult to be found ? Where 
does the offensive part of the correspondence begin ? It com - 
mences in secretary Smith's letter of november first . Till 
then there had been arguments and assertions made on both 
sides, conveyed indeed in that kind of strong language which 
is usual in diplomatick controversies, but no where transgres¬ 
sing the bounds of decency or diverging from the limits of 
civility or decorum. But in this letter, the secretary of 
state, as if he were at a loss for argument, and had exhaust¬ 
ed the whole stock of his ingenuity, begins calling names, 
and in the place of reasons advances pointed and offensive 
epithets. He tells the british minister that his allusions are 
u irrelevant and improper Is this a becoming language for 
one minister to hold to another at least upon an equality 
with him Would it be brooked in private life ? Who was 
it that constituted Robert Smith a judge over the conduct of 
a foreign minister in advocating the cause of his govern¬ 
ment ? It is true that he had before erected himself as the 
arbiter of the honour of sovereigns, and declared that he 
knew best what comported with the honour of the king ol 
England. The minister might therefore have no right to be 




1G 


surprised at being no better treated than the sovereign who 
sent him : but it is not every man who will tamely submit 
to the u premonitions ” of Robert Smith, whether addressed 
to his government or himself ; and the secretary has here 
got, according to the vulgar saying, his Rowlandfor an Oliver. 

It is clear then that whatever there may be offensive in 
this correspondence, originated with the american minister, 
and that mr. Jackson was called on to repel an insult offered 
to his sovereign in his person. It was easier no doubt, after 
this, to put an end to all communication with him, than to 
show by fair argument that he was wrong. That course was 
therefore preferred, especially as it had the additional advan¬ 
tage of getting rid of a man whose pliability was not brought 
into the form which suited the secretary’s accustomed mode 
of business. 

As to the avowed motive of “ shutting the door” upon the 
british minister, it has been seen that the insulting declara¬ 
tions, not insinuations , came from mr. Smith, and that he 
had made such “ disclosures ” and in such a spirit as would 
sooner have put an end to all discussions, if it had not been 
the determined purpose of the british minister to suffer no 
difficulty to interfere with the interest which as he says, 
“ both nations have in fostering a mutual and solid friend¬ 
ship and cordiality.” 

We cannot close this article without once more referring 
to mr. Smith’s complaint that sufficient reasons had not been 
alleged for the disavowal.—We have heretofore fully replied 
to this part of the complaint, but we omitted to notice 
that, cogent reasons were advanced why the honour of the 
english government could not consent to a repeal of the or¬ 
ders in council until the object of them should be answered 
in some other way—That is until there was an assurance on 
the part of this government to resist the french decrees. The 
honour of the english nation required such an assurance— 
Not that kind of honour which would a coxver under the im¬ 
perial eagle for protection,” and tolerates the insulting man.- 





17 


dates of one government tvhile it denies the just rights of 
embassy to another not that kind of honour which calls the 
seizing, burning, and plundering of our vessels mere 44 tres¬ 
passes” which while it palliates a cowardly neglect of our 
44 seafaring brethren” who are pining in french dungeons, by 
traducing their characters, encourages the tyrant’s outrage. 
Not that kind of counting-house honour graduated by profit 
and loss, but that which, bottomed on national glory and na¬ 
tional happiness, exhibits to the world the god-like spectacle 
of a nation fearlessly asserting her rights, whilst the rest of 
the world is supplicating mercy at the footstool of a ruthless 
tyrant.—It is indeed a consolation to every lover of the 
country to know that 44 from whatever countries ho¬ 
nourable AND MANLY RESISTANCE TO SUCH A SPIRIT MAY 
HAVE BEEN BANISHED, IT WILL STILL BE FOUND IN THE 
SOVEREIGN OF THE BRITISH NATION, AND IN THE HEARTS 
OF HIS SUBJECTS. 


c 




18 


NUMBER III. 

Secretary smith observes in his despatch to mr. 

Pinkney, that he “will not dwell on his (mr. Jackson’s) re¬ 
luctance, to give up the uncertainties of verbal for the pre¬ 
cision of written discussion.” We agree with the secretary 
that the less he said upon the subject the better. 

In the first place, nothing could be more ungracious than 
such a general prohibition to a minister who was just arrived, 
and who was not charged with having given rise, in his con¬ 
ferences, to any misunderstanding. If our cabinet consider¬ 
ed the negotiation to have arrived at that state of maturity 
that, it was advisable to reduce the respective propositions 
of the governments to writing, the correct course would 
have been to write a letter to the british minister without 
announcing their determination to withhold from him the 
privilege of verbal communication. Such a letter he would 
of course have answered, and thus a written, instead of a 
verbal discussion would have been engaged, without our 
government being chargeable with the abrupt and offensive 
step which they took in less than a fortnight’s negotiation 
with a new minister, of whose dispositions and instructions 
they certainly knew, that he professed to be well disposed 
to a good understanding between the two countries, and if 
we are not deceived, gave some acknowledged proofs of it, 
and that he considered his instructions to be consonant to 
such a state of things. For what is the obvious meaning of 
this inhibition, coupled as it was with the clamorous com¬ 
plaint made by the government of the disavowal of Erskine’s 
arrangement ? Why, that as there had been a misunder¬ 
standing between him and Robert Smith, and Albert Galla¬ 
tin, and as England had broke her faith , no credit ought 
henceforward to be given to her minister, who ever he 




19 


might be. The meaning of the matter was so clear that the 
british minister could not fail to draw the correct inference ; 
and will any man of sense or honour advance the opinion, 
that a minister in the very outset of his negotiation ought to 
submit to so gross an insinuation without noticing it in dis¬ 
tinct but decorous terms ? Unlike France, the british nation 
has always preserved at least the appearance of being tena¬ 
cious of her honour and good faith, and the minister would 
have misrepresented his sovereign, who could pass by such 
an “ implication” without noticing it in a pointed manner. 

When it was seen how he regarded the u insinuation,” a 
shuffle was contrived to say that it was not meant to be “ a 
general prohibition of all verbal communication whatever.” 
It was merely confined to this particular occasion. Now this 
is in direct contradiction to the secretary's Jirst intimation — 
but if we are not misinformed, he did in his goodness let the 
british minister know that he should be glad to see him at any 
time , and to converse with him upon any indifferent subjects . 
That is, to converse with him unofficially upon official sub¬ 
jects, or privately upon subjects of no concern at all. Most 
excellent! We can easily conceive mr. Jackson’s amazement 
at having it suggested to him, that he was come four thou¬ 
sand miles for the sake of enjoying Robert Smith’s agreeable 
conversation upon indifferent subjects. We should like to 
know what “all the Smiths” would have said if mr. Jack- 
son had opened his mission by declaring that he could only 
talk to our government about the properties of a little crus- 
taceous animal called the terrapin, about the indian summer, 
the beauties of the Potomack, or the Washington races and 
the misadventures of poor Post-boy; but that if they wanted 
to know any thing of business , he would write them a long 
letter, and they must give him an answer which would lead 
neither party to the point, 

Mr. Jackson knew, and all the world know, that there 
was never yet a difference adjusted and a treaty concluded 
solely by written discussions. Such a thing is scarcely prac- 




20 


ticable, especially when there are many points of uncommon 
delicacy and intricacy to be adjusted. Foreign missions 
would be idle if such a practice were to prevail, and we had 
as well at once order home all our ministers abroad, and de¬ 
clare war against every power with whom there is an exchange 
of ministers, We have already seen in the april arrangement 
where two ministers set at their desks, and -write at each 
Other , and, without coming to any conversation, which might 
in five minutes obviate misunderstandings, they blunder on 
until at last they put their hands to something which throws 
two nations in a flame.—Many are the cases (and this was 
one of them) in which warmth of feeling and some asperity 
of sentiment was to be expected. Is it not the business of 
ministers to calm the one and to soften the other ? mr. Smith 
desired to do neither. He foresaw the consequences and 
was eager to arrive at the result. He knew that in conver¬ 
sation expressions can be modified and softened so as to 
deprive them of their irritating qualities. Many circum¬ 
stances can be dropped or thrown into a shade, and if those 
who treat are sincerely disposed to accommodation, they 
will find means (unless they be more ignorant and awkward 
than mr. attorney Smith) to satisfy what the sensibility of 
their own government demands without grievously wounding 
that of another. This appears to have been the object of the 
british minister from the manner in which he treated the of¬ 
fensive expressions gratuitously brought forward by Robert 
Smith in his note of the eighteenth of april. It was impos¬ 
sible, we will not say for a sovereign, but for any man, to 
submit to the impertinent sneer of a pettifogging attorney, 
although chance may have invested him with the robes of 
office. It would have been very “ becoming the occasion” 
to have plucked all the fine feathers from the jackdaw’s tail 

and to have exposed him to the laughter of his fellows_ 

But the british government through her minister, did not 
think fit to permit the interests of the two nations to be sa¬ 
crificed to the vulgar and unseemly incivility which Robert 



21 


Smith thought “ becoming the occasion .” Upon the whole 
we may conclude that, written were preferred to verbal com¬ 
munications, because the cunning secretary could not draw 
upon the ingenuity and abilities of mr. Madison in his con¬ 
ferences, both of which could be consulted and brought into 
active employment in a correspondence. 

But it is said that additional illustration is given by mr. 
Jackson’s letter of the utility of written discussion. Certain¬ 
ly, if it was beforehand intended to put into his mouth things 
which he had never said, he ought to be the first to rejoice 
at the course that was taken.—We find indeed in the subse¬ 
quent part of his correspondence, that he is well pleased at 
it. He had soon occasion to be so, as we see that he directly 
and distinctly denies a very material part of the statement 
imputed to him by Robert Smith. He even shows , not only 
that he did not, but that from the secretary’s own version he 
could not; it was not possible that he should have made that 
statement. He shows that there was as well absurdity as 
falsehood in imputing it to him, for that it was obviously in 
contradiction with another part of the secretary’s own repre¬ 
sentation. To get rid of this difficulty, as usual, a quibble 
has been resorted to. It is now stated by Robert Smith and 
the hirelings of the faction which supports him, that mr. 
Jackson says he could not have made the statement with the 
particular view which seemed to be supposed, and it is more 
than insinuated that he did however in fact make it.—Now 
a recurrence to what that “particular view” must be, will 
sufficiently show that the statement was not and could not 
have been made at all. 

It is observed to mr. Jackson, that he had disclosed his 
instructions which prescribed certain peremptory conditions. 
He says, I do no such thing.*— u I make you no proposals, 
suggest no conditions, but am to receive proposals from you; 
—•when you have made them, I will tell you how far I can 
accede to them—I will tell you what my terms are.” Mr. 
Jackson had nothing to do with the conditions or terms ac- 


22 


ceded to by mr. Erskine, except to give to our government 
“ good and solid ” reasons for the disavowal. This he did, 
although it had been previously done in England to mr. Pink¬ 
ney, by communicating to him in extenso the violated in¬ 
structions. Mr. Canning then, on the twenty-seventh of 
may, in a note to mr. Pinkney, informed him that mr. Jack- 
son would not come to this country w on any special mission 
(which mr. Erskine was not authorised to promise, except 
upon conditions not one of which he has obtained,) but as 
the successor of mr. Erskine , whom his majesty has not lost 
a moment in recalling.” Mr. Jackson then, was avowedly 
not sent upon any special mission , which our government 
knew, and therefore any apology from him, or propositions 
to be substituted to the disavowed arrangement was not to 
be expected, nor were they necessary.—The arrangement 
being lawfully annulled, he was to enter upon the negotia¬ 
tion as though no such arrangement had ever been made. 
Each government was to resume its former attitude ; which 
made ns the party making propositions for the repeal of the 
orders in council, and not England begging to get rid of our 
non-intercourse act, which in fact she really appears to re¬ 
gard with a perfect indifference, although it was boasted as 
the mean of forcing her to terms. 

Here then we see the “particular view,” viz.-—that of 
answering by anticipation , mr. Smith’s proposals. But as 
Robert Smith is a great adept at confounding things in them¬ 
selves most distinct, is it not possible that mr. Jackson may 
in some other way, have stated what the pretensions of his 
court had been ? Is it not likely that he told the secretary 
what mr. Erskine ought to have obtained instead of the only 
favour , that he did obtain, that of the renewal of trade ; and 
the secretary mistook this for a fresh proposal of the british 
government ? If we combine this strong presumption with 
secretary Smith’s avowed defect of memory, and with the 
other parts of mr. Jackson’s letters, we shall easily disen¬ 
tangle the subject from the maze in which our government, by 




23 


its insinuations, implications and inuendoes , is now endea¬ 
vouring to involve it, to the confusion of the understandings 
of those who are about to decide on the merits of the ques¬ 
tion. What then must be the degree of assurance that would 
intimate that mr. Jackson had not essentially objected in the 
first instance to the statement laid before him of the over¬ 
tures which he had made by word of mouth ? and what are 
we to think of the pertinacity with which, in spite of his 
constant and repeated denial, the same statement is attempt¬ 
ed to be palmed upon him, merely for the purpose of holding 
out to the people of this country, that Great Britain was 
making proposals offensive to its dignity and derogatory to 
its sovereignty. 

As for the partial and inconsistent views of the subject, 
which are said to have taken place of its real merits, that is 
the question which essentially belongs to the two governments. 
If the british minister has been so deficient in his logick, 
and so superior in sophistry to the lawyer that he had to do 
with, that lawyer will doubtless have to plume himself upon 
an eminence which he has not heretofore enjoyed, and he 
will no doubt consider it as a farther recommendation to that 
promotion to the bench of our national judicature, which 
those who are anxious for the prosperity of our foreign af¬ 
fairs look forward to with so much impatience. 

From the view which we have so far been enabled to take 
of the secretary’s despatch to mr. Pinkney, we have made 
it appear with very little difficulty that, that extraordinary 
document abounds with misrepresentations, prevarications, 
and inconsistencies. From the style and matter of the lat¬ 
ter, and more particularly its communication to congress and 
immediate publication, it is evident that it was designed for 
the people and not for mr. Pinkney; and we think it is no 
mistake to say, that much of the despatch is directed partic¬ 
ularly at mr. Jackson, for the low and ignoble purpose of 
wounding his feelings. It is in this way that lawyer Smith’s 
vengeance is to be appeased and his overflowing resentment 




24 


to be gratified. Bat it should be remembered that such a 
procedure, instead of exalting the dignity of the nation and 
advancing its prosperity, will have the effect of depreciating 
our national character and increasing the difficulties in which 
our foreign relations are involved. Abroad and at home, 
the respectability of our government was already sufficiently 
sunk in the estimation of those whose opinions are to be va¬ 
lued, but it is doomed to be depressed still lower by the 
weak and intriguing administration of Madison and his cun¬ 
ning attorney Smith. 




25 


NUMBER IV. 


We now come to the main subjects of controversy be¬ 
tween the two governments, and we find that secretary Smith 
has made the wonderful discovery that, with respect to the or¬ 
ders in council, the ground of the disavowal is the difference 
between the arrangement and the printed despatch from mr. 
Canning of the twenty-third of january. It is true that this 
had been often repeated to him by the british minister, as 
likewise the fact that the ground of the disavowal as to the 
affair of the Chesapeake, was the difference between the ar¬ 
rangement and mr. Erskine’s instructions, but by some, even 
for Robert Smith, unaccountable density of intellects, he 
never could understand it, but was continually calling for the 
explanations of an explanation. He was either obstinately 
blind and wilfully perverse, or he was incapable of compre¬ 
hending plain and unequivocal language. He seemed to 
have a fancy for a tale twice told, and for the want of some¬ 
thing to say himself, he wished it told again. 

After demanding innumerable explanations, and cudgelling 
his brains, the aspiring secretary at last stumbled upon the 
true cause of the disavowal, and sets himself very gravely 
to work to show that the cause is a very bad one. That 
such should be the opinions of both mr. Madison and hi* 
secretary is nothing surprising. After closing a bargain with 
a seduced minister, by which they freed themselves from the 
obnoxious measures and fatal policy they had been pursuing, 
and at the same time ridded themselves of the orders in 
council without the smallest sacrifice, and also, by means of 
the arrangement, gained the little incidental advantage of 
carrying their elections in Maryland, New-York, &c. they 
could not help feeling a reluctance at the loss of those tem- 
D 




porary advantages—But in arguing the matter fairly, and 
examining the propriety and legitimacy of the cause, not 
only as americans, but as impartial judges of the affairs of 
nations. Mr. Smith’s view of the subject will not suffice. We 
must enquire whether the cause be consistent with right and 
justice ; and even mr. Madison himself has not ventured to 
deny it, although he abundantly insinuates it in his message 
to congress, and through the whole course of his correspon¬ 
dence with the british minister. On this point we would re¬ 
commend mr. Madison rather to adopt the sentiments of that 
minister, who spurns at the imputation of having u uttered 
an insinuation where he could not substantiate a fact.” 

But let us see how the secretary treats the three points of 
this difference. 

As to the first, M the colonial trade,” he asks why^ as it 
has become of little practical importance , has it been made a 
ground of disavowal P We will tell the gentleman. It was 
done for these three obvious reasons we presume : 

1st. Because it was necessary to the retaliatory system 
adopted by England against France. 

• 2nd. Having become of such little practical importance, 
it was not asking any great favour or concession of the 
United States, especially as England has always denied their 
right to such a trade. 

3d. Because, above all, a cabinet minister of the United 
States had told mr. Ershine that he knew that it was intend¬ 
ed by the United States “ to abandon the attempt to carry on 
a trade with the colonies of belligerents in time of war which 
was not allowed in time of peace” 

Under those circumstances, what could have been more 
natural than that the british government should avail itself of 
an intention thus announced, which also tallied with its own 
views, in order to come to an agreement, which by concilia¬ 
ting the wishes of this country, would remove the ground of 
past differences. 




27 


But the colonial trade is, it seems, nowise connected with 
the orders in council. Why then was the renunciation of it 
by America so strongly urged by mr. Gallatin, as a mean of 
coming to an arrangement, of which the revocation of the 
orders in council, was to be the principal feature ? This sub¬ 
ject might not have been introduced had it not been for mr. 
Gallatin. He alone is chargeable with the share it has had 
in frustrating the desired arrangement.—It would have been 
easy for England to have relied upon the non-intercourse 
net of this country, or if that were thought insufficient in the 
West-Indies, as it was known to be in Europe , an order in 
council specially applicable to that particular case, may have 
been resorted to by England, and thus found its way into 
the instruction of the twenty-third of January. 

But it seems this was a mistake —this was not the meaning 
of the secretary of the treasury—he pretends that he said no 
such thing to mr. Erskine. 

It is impossible not to observe how frequently, but how 
very opportunely these mistakes occur.—Mr. Gallatin is mis¬ 
taken, mr. Pinkney is mistaken , and yet these mistakes have 
always the effect of holding out an advantage to another par¬ 
ty, in order to obtain something 1 in our oxvn favour , which 
advantage we think it afterwards better to withhold—and 
wonderful to tell, these mistakes are only discovered when it 
suits the views of one party to raise a clamour against the oth¬ 
er. Had there really been a mistake with mr. Gallatin, what 
could have prevented mr. Erskine from finding it out ? From 
the beginning of 1808, the time when the conversation is 
stated to have taken place, until april, 1809, when the ar¬ 
rangement was made, mr. Erskine continued at Washington, 
during the whole period, had frequent conferences with mr. 
Gallatin, and therefore abundant opportunities of correcting 
first impressions, if there had been any idea that they were 
erroneous. Still mr. Smith tells mr. Pinkney, (and who 
would not believe a man of mr . Synitlfs veracity) that this 
condition originated in a mistake , and he has the assurance 




28 


to ask why has it been persisted in after the error was made, 
known P To this a very simple answer may be given—it is 
that IT HAS NOT BEEN persisted in. We refer to the cor¬ 
respondence to support the assertion. Does not mr. Jackson, 
in every letter he writes, and in various paragraphs of each 
letter, state and restate this, even to satiety ? and as mr. 
Jackson is supposed to be a man of an irritable temper, we 
give him credit for much patience and forbearance in not 
suffering it to be ruffled by the frequent u gross ” and inten¬ 
tional misrepresentations of his language, which was convey¬ 
ed in the most unequivocal terms, and corrected afterwards 
according to the secretary's ozvn suggestion . By what milder 
name can we call mr. Smith’s perverse misstatements, but 
gross and intentional misrepresentations, made with a view 
to lead mr. Pinkney into further errors and mistakes, and 
unjustly to prejudice the people of England against their 
minister. When mr. Jackson saw things repeatedly and by 
main force thrust into his conversations and correspondence 
which he had repeatedly and solemnly denied and protested 
against, what must he have thought, as well of the personal 
respect towards him as of the sentiments entertained towards 
his country i Such hardihood and u gross ” indecorum , how¬ 
ever, mr. Smith may have thought it u becoming the occa¬ 
sion,” would have irritated any man, and ought not to have 
been tolerated. Yet we find, mr. Jackson, in strong but 
dignified language reiterating his explanations in language, 
which would defy the ^ quirks and quibbles” of any but a 
, cunning attorney. 

This conduct of mr. Smith is the more provoking and 
blameworthy when we recollect the avowed cause of the un¬ 
precedented and unauspicious treatment which mr. Jackson 
has received at the hands of our government. Imputing to 
our government something that they denied, was made the 
plea for mr. Jackson’s dismissal, and yet mr. Smith with 
perfect impunity, asserts, reasserts, denies, contradicts, puts 
words in his mouth which he never used, and to cap the 




29 


climax of his rudeness roundly accuses the minister with 
u improper and irrelevant allusions .”—Such conduct in our 
secretary was considered the quintessence of diplomatic firm¬ 
ness and propriety, but would cut the thread of an engiish 
envoy’s existence. 

Suppose mr. Jackson had really been so “ indecorous ” as 
to represent mr. Madison as saying in his official letters things 
that he had assured him that he had not said, and did not 
mean to say, and was to repeat this in the most solemn 
manner, what, according to the rule of action adopted by our 
government, would have been done ? Why according to our 
own principles, and the spirit of the late proceedings, he 
would not have been allowed to remain an hour in the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia. He would have been sent off even before 
it could have been known to our friends at Paris, who would 
thus, for once, have been taken by surprise in their calcula¬ 
tions of our w complacency .” 

Let us suppose further that the w odius and execrable ” mi¬ 
nister Canning, (whom a sage member of our legislature 
said he would have burnt* upon Gallows Hill if he had been 
there) had made mr. Pinkney appear to say things that he 
never did say, and insisted upon his unsaying what he had 
not saidsuppose our minister to have been grossly insulted 
a by implication ,” and then to have been dismissed for doing 
what in fact he did not, but mr. Canning himself had done, 
what we ask, would have been the feelings of the american 
people i All parties would have united in one voice to de¬ 
mand reparation for the insult. 

Is there no reciprocity of rights and duties between a fo¬ 
reign minister and the government which receives him ? If 
such conduct be not personally offensive to the ambassadour 

* In the debate upon mr J. H. Thomas’s resolutions disap¬ 
proving of the embargo, general Stansbury uttered these memo¬ 
rable words : “ We did burn the gin on Gailow r s Hill, and with it 
the orders in council ; and if mr. Canning had been there, we 
should like to have burnt him too.” 




30 


of a great power thus wilfully to misrepresent his meaning, 
it at all events, shows no disposition to come to friendly 
terms with that power. From the commencement of the 
negociation, nay before it had commenced, our government 
betrayed a fixed determination to thwart all the efforts of 
England to adjust our differences. 

In the course of the negociation mr. Jackson so often told 
our government that he did not propose or look to the terms 
of mr. Erskine’s arrangement, that we might almost tax him 
with the intention of manifesting an offensive indifference to 
us, and since the government were determined to be offended, 
they might rather have fixed upon this than their own ground 
for the purpose, for he twice said in the course of a fortnight , 
that “ it was a matter of indifference whether the order in 
council be continued, or an arrangement by mutual consent, 
substituted in its room.” Whose fault is it then if the orders 
in council have not been repealed ? Our government has 
made no attempt at an arrangement with mr. Jackson or 
they may have been rescinded. 




31 


\ 


NUMBER V 

Mr. Smith informs mr. Pinkney, that u another point 
in the despatch and not in the arrangement is that the bri- 
tish navy might capture our trade to ports prohibited by the 
United States.” 

The indignation of our doughty secretary has been mar¬ 
velously excited by the mere suggestion of a compact so 
dishonorable to an independent nation. He assails his bro¬ 
ther secretary in England with about the same vigour and 
effect that the knight of La Mancha displayed in attacking 
the wind mills. Mr. Canning was known to be out of office, 
and therefore our valourous Baltimore secretary very nobly 
kicks at him as he is down. It is true that this is done with 
somewhat more decency than by the renowned senator from 
Virginia, but it must also be true that the vulgar and disgust¬ 
ing topicks of abuse against mr. Canning, with which his 
speech is replete, were furnished by the authors of the para¬ 
graph of the despatch to mr. Pinkney. 

Here we have again one of our convenient mistakes, and 
mr. Canning has u indecorously” persisted in it. Here too 
we say, as we said before, that he has done no such thing; 
and we say more, viz.—that the president and his secretary 
knew that he did not , at the very time they penned their des¬ 
patch to mr . Pinkney which rue are considering . They had 
been told over and over again that u there was no wish 
whatever entertained in England that the british navy should 
be employed in executing a law of Congress .” This is a 
written declaration made by mr. Jackson in his correspon¬ 
dence with mr. Smith, and yet in the face of truth the mat¬ 
ter is otherwise represented to mr. Pinkney, that they might 
have a ground of clamour against England and the british 
navy. We call upon mr. Smith to say whether misrepre- 




sentations so palpable and unbecoming, comport with the 
honour and dignity of a private gentleman, much less a se¬ 
cretary of state ? Was it not most eminently “ forbidden by 
those principles of decorum which mark the proceedings of 
governments towards each other 

But the british minister is said to have glossed this extra¬ 
ordinary idea, which is now magnificently called an attribute 
of mr. Madison’s sovereignty, not to be approached but with 
a degree of awe and reverence “ becoming the occasion.” It 
does appear that the british government zuas willing to go so 
far as to make it a matter of solemn compact between the 
two countries, and would no doubt have parted with as much 
sovereignty as it gained, as we are so fond of a quid pro 
quo. —But what does mr. Erskine say that Robert Smith told 
him touching this point of controversy ? It is very possible 
that he did not mention it to mr. Madison, further than the 
sly peep which he may have had at mr. Erskine’s despatch^ 
But at all events this part of the subject appears to have 
been submitted to him (Robert Smith) and as he says, strong¬ 
ly urged. Well, what appear to have been mr. Smith’s im¬ 
pressions at that time ? Does he fly in a passion and call it 
an invasion of our national sovereignty ? No not at all, he 
rather encourages mr. Erskine to suppose that no great ob¬ 
jection will be made to it. He merely intimates that it 
might be rejected in a certain form—that it is unnecessary, 
because the thing could be done without any stipulation. It 
was a thing to which no great importance, in his opinion, 
could be attached, for, says he to mr. Erskine, you have only 
to capture our vessels under the circumstances you describe; 
“ lt "would be impossible that a citizen of the United States 
zvouid prefer a complaint to his government on account of the 
capture of his vessel while engaged in a trade absolutely in¬ 
terdicted by the laws of his country .” Hence what would be 
an invasion of national honour and sovereignty when reduced 
to the form of a compact, is entirely innocent and admissible 
when done as a matter of implied right. 



Those who were willing to think favourably of mr. Madi¬ 
son, would have thought that a sense of feeling for the dig¬ 
nity of our diplomatick intercourse with other nations, if not 
in mercy to himself and secretary, would have brought him 
to a pause before he penned the pompous paragraph about 
sovereignty, and printed it in the same collection, where it 
would travel cheek by jowl with the clear and unsophisti¬ 
cated paragraph quoted from the conference of the secretary. 
As to the necessity of the condition itself, or some equiva¬ 
lent for it, no man who knows the practice of merchants will 
doubt of it. It ctmnot be doubted, and even our cabinet will 
not pretend to say that the far-famed non-intercourse law is 
an equivalent for it. If they do, they will find themselves 
as much at variance with the treasury, as we have just shown 
they were at variance with their foreign secretary. 

Would not the english have been the verriest ideots, if 
they had believed that american vessels would have abstained 
from trading with France, when the non-intercourse act as 
regarded England was removed. They know too well how 
far this act is efficacious in regard to themselves, to trust to 
its strict observance towards France. They know that, in 
spite of all our acts and proclamations and penalties, they 
have and will continue to have as much of our intercourse as 
they choose, and knowing this they are determined that 
France shall not enjoy the same advantage. They blockade 
the ports of France and Holland because they know we have 
not the power to do that which their navy does most effectu¬ 
ally, viz.—prevent our citizen generals and general citizens 
from running into a french port. Is it not an undeniable fact 
that in spite of our restrictions, vessels are every day sailing 
for England, by which not only the laws are broken, the 
people demoralized, but we are deprived of the use of our 
best vessels and best seamen, who either remain in Europe, 
in continued violation of our laws, carrying on a trade with 
foreign nations, or are forced by want of subsistence to enlist 
in a foreign navy ?—If therefore we had been sincere in our 
E 



restrictions upon the trade with France, we ought to have 
entertained different feelings towards England, than those of 
indignation for her proffered assistance. It cannot be 
doubted that we should derive the same aid from the french 
navy in executing the non-intercourse law in regard to Eng¬ 
land, if the said navy dared but show itself out of its own 
waters, but in the latter event perhaps we should feel more 
grateful. 

We have at last come to the third condition a which alone 
properly belongs to the subject.” It requires as a sine qua 
non of the revocation of the orders in council, that the non¬ 
intercourse act should be repealed as regards England, and 
left in force as regards France. 

The worthy secretary tells us that these two things were 
in their nature incompatible. If this be true, why were they 
held out to mr. Erskine as a lure to induce him to propose 
to his government the revocation of the orders in council ? 
This very condition originated with our cabinet, and was 
only adopted by mr. Canning from mr. Erskine’s reports of 
his conversations with mr. Madison and mr. Smith, and from 
a previous overture made by mr. Pinkney, in consequence 
of instructions from these very ministers. If, when this con¬ 
dition of american origin, came back to Washington in the 
despatch of the twenty-third of january, it was found that 
there had been such a multiplication of mistakes that even 
the chief magistrate as well as his several secretaries had 
been represented as proposing a thing which he had not the 
power to perform, the simple course would have been to have 
said so at once, and for mr. Erskine to inform his govern¬ 
ment that what they had contemplated was impracticable. 
The american people in this way would have known that it 
was to that interpretation of our constitution that the con¬ 
tinuance of the orders in council was owing. Mr. Madison 
is answerable only for a part of this embarrassing dilemma. 
He and his man Friday no doubt supposed that they were 
showing a wonderful specimen of their diplomatick address in 




35 


throwing out a bait for the british minister’s credulity, but 
mr. Erskine is still more seriously responsible for having 
lost sight of his instructions, and accepting terms diametri¬ 
cally opposite to them. This however, as has been stated, 
is, u a question essentially between him and his government.” 

However, since we have been told so by such high au¬ 
thority, we must admit that this condition was at variance 
with our constitution. In that case no arrangement ought to 
have been made, and some one of the various expedients 
now stated as having been incumbent upon Great Britain, 
might have been suggested by us for her adoption. But it is 
said that it was the duty of England to know and attend to 
our constitution, to have acquiesced in the effects of it, and 
been satisfied to infer from the spirit of our former commu¬ 
nications that we meant to do her justice. The nature of 
our constitution is a question dehors the dispute between the 
two governments. The british or any other government has 
nothing to do with the nature of our constitution but through 
the executive. Would it accord with the “ principles of de¬ 
corum which mark the proceedings of governments towards 
each other” for one government to insinuate that the minis¬ 
try of another government did not understand its own con¬ 
stitution ? or made propositions repugnant to that constitu¬ 
tion which they could not lawfully perform ? The british 
government was bound to believe that messrs. Madison and 
Smith were competent to carry into full effect any arrange¬ 
ment which they might propose, and if they possessed not 
the power to do so they ought not to have made the arrange¬ 
ment. It is ridiculous to suppose that other countries will 
sacrifice their interests out of tenderness to the various inter¬ 
pretations which might be put upon our constitution. Indeed 
mr. Madison and his secretary were so anxious to complete 
the arrangement of april, that they disregarded all legal con¬ 
siderations to accomplish their purposes. As we have con¬ 
clusively shown upon a former occasion, mr. Madison vio¬ 
lated the act of congress by renewing commercial intercourse 



36 


with England before the orders in council had actually been 
repealed. His proclamations renewing and suspending inter¬ 
course with England were both promulged in direct violation 
of the act of congress. But mr. Madison anticipated so 
many important advantages by the april arrangement, that 
he could not resist the temptation to assume the necessary 
power which had not been delegated. 

But mr. Smith speaks of the spirit of our communica* 
tion!!! How wofuily would John Bull have been deceived 
ii he had pinned his faith upon that , for in what did this 
spirit show itself? The poor seduced minister’s ink was 
scarcely dry in the pen with which he signed this auspicious 
arrangement, before two acts were done by our government, 
both of which were manifestly, (and are now avowedly) 
u gross” infractions of the spirit if not the letter of it. The 
first was the exemption of Holland from the non-intercourse 
laws, although admitted by all the world to be a dependency 
of France, and evidently designed by congress to be included 
in the provision of the law. The second—the admission 
into our ports of the ships of war of France, who had not 
complied with our terms, on the same footing with those of 
England who had. These are actions, by which the 
“ spirit ” and views of a government may be better judged 
of than by empty words. But the matter was with difficulty 
stopped here. It is notorious that after the arrangement was 
concluded, mr. Giles, fearing that the british government 
might possibly ratify it, was desirous, instead of admitting 
the vessels of war of the two belligerents into our ports and 
waters, to prohibit the entrance of both. Although all ma¬ 
terial disputes with England were supposed to have been 
done away, the proclamation revoked, or merged in the non¬ 
intercourse act, the affair of the Chesapeake atoned for, yet 
did the Virginia demagogue contend among his political 
friends that british vessels of war should be excluded from 
our waters. 




37 


We argue from facts, and not presumption. These are 
solemn truths not to be denied, and we know of no time when 
they could be better brought forward than now, when the ill- 
faith of England is the constant theme of democratick cla¬ 
mour and abuse. Although this conduct in our cabinet 
deserves no milder name than treachery, nothing has been 
advanced on the part of the administration even in extenua¬ 
tion of these flagrant breaches of that spirit of honest and fair 
dealing in which all national transactions ought to be con¬ 
ceived and executed. For the present we only point them 
out to the reprobation of those of our citizens who have not 
the patience to follow Robert Smith through all the wind¬ 
ings of his politicks. But it will be well, in a very few 
words to explain how it happened that, amidst all these op¬ 
posing considerations, any arrangement at all was made in 
april last. 

It has been already seen for what purposes such an ar¬ 
rangement was wanted by our electioneering president and 
his secretary’s brother the redoubtable hero of Mud Island. 
But how was mr. Erskine brought into their views ? Why 
by making him believe that if he did not obtain the precise 
conditions that were prescribed to him, he obtained what was 
an equivalent for them : an understanding that they should 
all in substance , if not in the exact form required, be carried 
into effect by this government. Such certainly was the per¬ 
suasion of mr. Erskine, and it is the only justification of his 
conduct—Where those who put upon him this belief, know¬ 
ing that it would not and could not be realized, will find 
their justification, is a question which it becomes not us, 
though it is highly u becoming the occasion,” to determine. 




NUMBER- VI. 


WE have shewn that there could not be in reason any 
reliance on the part of the british government, on the spirit 
of mr. Smith’s communications, and that if England had 
been simple enough to rely upon appearances so entirely 
false and illusory, she would have been grossly deceived, and 
rendered the object of contempt and ridicule throughout 
Europe. It would have furnished matter for french mirth 
and bon mots as long as the Napoleon dynasty shall exist. 

Our secretary goes on in the continuance of his instruc¬ 
tion to mr. Pinkney, to calculate with true mercantile nicety 
what would be the profit and loss balance of the account if 
England had, upon our own terms, repealed her orders in 
council. Here let us once more warn our countrymen against 
the very natural, and in other respects venial error of judg¬ 
ing of this point only by their interest and feelings as amer- 
icans ; and never to forget that there are two parties to this 
transaction, and that the english have feelings and interests 
as well as ourselves. 

We speak from feeling when we say that the arrangement 
as obligingly subscribed by mr. Erskine, was such as every 
citizen of these states, in the fullness of his patriotism ought 
to wish to see ratified. It not only fostered our interests, 
and paid unsparing homage to the superiour steadiness of our 
national policy, but it ministered also most copiously to our 
national vanity.—Who amongt us would not exult to see 
that those measures which we had for two years reprobated, 
and without the recall of which we had denounced the ven¬ 
geance of our national hostility against Great-Britain, should 
be brought as a peace offering to the shrine of our omnipo¬ 
tence ? Who is there that did not in april last, advantageous¬ 
ly if not tauntingly, compare the firm perseverance and effi- 




39 


cacious vigour of our own government with the vacillating 
councils, the vapouring declarations of the british ministry, 
who had so soon and without any equivalent or the slightest 
compensation, abandoned their far-famed orders, which they 
had so often said they would maintain against a world in 
arms ? Who, we say, in this republican land could be insen¬ 
sible to the titillation with which every republican fibre must 
so sensitively vibrate upon seeing the mighty monarch of the 
british isles instructed in the nice principles of national ho¬ 
nour, by a (till lately) obscure attorney of Baltimore ?—These 
were considerations of great and legitimate joyfulness and 
exultation to every true american. But alas! every true 
american must be sensible that as a portion of his civil liber¬ 
ty is sacrificed in order to preserve the great and valuable 
bulk of the remainder, so must we, in our national concerns, 
give up a part of the very highest degree of our patriotick 
enjoyment in which we love to luxuriate, in order to preserve 
that order and tranquillity with other nations which are in¬ 
dispensable to our welfare. Let us therefore for one mo¬ 
ment soberly and dispassionately enquire whether Great 
Britain ought to have been expected to make the sacrifice 
involved in mr. Erskine’s arrangement. 

That we as americans, looking not beyond a little tempo¬ 
rary triumph and advantage, should wish her so to do, and 
should crown with laurels the statesman-like temples of Ro¬ 
bert Smith, had he otherxvise than by a legerdemain deception 
obtained such an advantage, we most readily grant. But in 
honour and in reason could we expect it of the british gov¬ 
ernment, that without any new motive or advantage they 
should be ready to give up a system which had been repeat¬ 
edly and solemny declared (no matter whether right or 
wrong) to be essential to their national interests and insepa¬ 
rable from their national honour t 

Secretary Smith has undertaken to decide the question, 
and gives his opinion that England has no sufficient motives 
to persevere in her system and ought to abandon it. This 




40 


unfledged diplomatist, puffed up with conceit of his great 
political abilities, very gravely endeavours to prove that such 
is the true policy of England. He runs to his counting house, 
takes down his ledger, and informs us that the orders in 
council are of no avail, because they do not cause the tea and 
coffee sipped by imperial and other lips at the coteries of Pa¬ 
ris to be above three cents per pound dearer, than if no such 
order existed. He tells us, if we cannot carry our eggs and 
butter to Amsterdam we have a market very near as good 
in the neighbouring town of Tonningen, and that Frenchmen 
will as readily come there as they would to Bordeaux or to 
Antwerp, and he snaps his fingers at the fuss and bustle at¬ 
tempted to be made by pretending to injure France by such 
orders as these. But, waving for a moment, this great states¬ 
man’s jocularity, we would beseech our countrymen to pause 
and say, whether this trifling difference as it regards us y 
should, in sober seriousness, be made a plea for embarras¬ 
sing and counteracting the efforts of a nation, fighting not 
only for her own existence, but for ours. Mr. Smith, in his 
attempt to be jocose, and to gratify himself with a malignant 
sneer, forgot that he was weakening and bringing ridicule 
upon his own counting house logick. It is well to elucidate 
points of controversy and national policy by supposed cases. 
If, for instance, a man, living in Calvert , have a market for 
his produce in Gay-street , and a fire has broke out in it, shall 
he hinder the inhabitants from extinguishing the fire because 
by their misfortune he is obliged to remove for the sale 
of his goods into the street adjoining ? and if amongst our 
social neighbours we should reprobate such a conduct, what 
shall we say of those who, in the great community of the 
universe, administer fuel (for their own paltry gain) to that 
great conflagration which threatens the destruction of the 
whole fabrick of national independence. But our vain secre¬ 
tary gets rid of this subject with a sneer, and thinks that by 
his shop-keeping calculations he has cut up by the very roots 



41 


the plans of the British ministry for opposing Bonaparte’s 
spirit of universal dominion. 

Whether our secretary’s calculation or his sneer will have 
most effect in intimidating the british government; or in pro¬ 
pitiating his friend and family connection Napoleon, remains 
to be discovered. We have already seen what effect it pro¬ 
duced upon the mind of mr. Jackson, by his letter of October 
twenty-third, fie says, 

“ Without minutely calculating what may be the degree of 
pressure felt at Paris by the difference in the price of goods 
xvhether landed at Havre or at Hamburg ; I will in my turn, 
appeal to your judgment, sir, whether it be not a strong and 
solid reason , worthy to guide the councils of a great and 
powerful monarch, to set bounds to that spirit of encroach¬ 
ment and universal dominion which would bend all things to 
its own standard ? Is it nothing in the present state of the 
world, when the agents of France authoritatively announce 
to their victims, ‘ that Europe is submitting and surrender¬ 
ing by degrees,’ that the world should know, that there is a 
nation, which, by that divine goodness so strongly appealed 
to in the paper to which I allude, (AngereaiCs proclamation 
to the CataloniansJ is enabled to falsify the assertion ? Is it 
not important at such a moment, that Europe and America 
should be convinced, that from whatever countries honoura¬ 
ble and manly resistance to such a spirit may have been ba¬ 
nished, it will still be found in the sovereign of the british 
nation and in the hearts of his subjects.” 

This eloquent, spirited and impressive appeal, with en- 
glishmen, alone would cover a multitude of errors.—We 
much fear that the calculations of our secretary will go but a 
very little way to counteract its effects, nor are they of a na¬ 
ture to relieve these states from the embarrassments under 
which they have been and still are languishing. One thing 
at least is certain, that in contemplating this subject, consi¬ 
derations of national honour and dignity have been entirely 
thrown aside or turned into ridicule by our secretary. On 
F 




42 


the subject immediately following indeed they are abundantly 
reproduced in the words if not in the conduct of our execu¬ 
tive. 

On the outrage committed by the british in the attack of 
the Chesapeake there existed at the time, throughout the 
whole union, but one feeling of just and virtuous indignation, 
nor was an attempt any where made to lessen the influence 
of the universal sentiment produced by that occurrence. 

When it was found that the unauthorised act of an indi¬ 
vidual was promptly disavowed and that an honourable satis¬ 
faction was spontaneously offered in the manner best calcu¬ 
lated to evince the sincerity of one party and to gratify the 
wounded feelings of the other, it was no longer thought by 
the reflecting part of the community to be a cause of war. 
On the subject of mr. Rose’s mission there seemed to be a 
pretty general opinion on both sides the Atlantic, that an 
unnecessary attention to punctilio was shown by the negocia- 
tors of both nations, and no doubt both would have reason 
to rejoice at this time if a little more of reciprocal concession 
had been manifested. But mr. Rose was justified by an ad¬ 
herence to his instructions and our government was no doubt 
equally defensible in acting with becoming firmness in a case 
so vitally affecting the best feelings of the country. There 
can be no question with any real american that if a step far¬ 
ther was indispensibly required on either side to arrive at an 
accommodation, that step ought to have been taken by the 
british minister.—But it was prevented by a determination 
evinced on the part of our cabinet not to accept of any repa¬ 
ration that could reasonably be required, knowing that it 
would be a source of continual irritation with the people, and 
would increase their prejudices against England. That our 
government never wished the affair of the Chesapeake settled, 
was plainly betrayed by the attempt made to connect it with 
the other matters of dispute, and has been fully confirmed 
by the manner in which mr. Jackson’s proposition upon that 
head had been treated. 




43 


When the negociation was resumed by mr. Erskine after 
the failure of mr. Rose’s mission, there existed less difficulty 
in regard to it, and although he appears from the correspon¬ 
dence recently published to have deviated from his instruc¬ 
tions on this as on the other topick, yet there is great reason 
to believe that had it not been for the “ indecorous” and 
even offensive style of our secretary’s official correspondence 
on the occasion, the arrangement on this head may have been 
allowed to stand good. It is true that mr. Jackson does 
mention several very essential points upon which his prede¬ 
cessor’s instructions were diregarded; but we are led to 
think that this circumstance would not of itself have been an 
insurmountable obstacle by reference to a passage in his let¬ 
ter of the eleventh of October, in which he speaks of the 
offensive expressions “ which at all events put it totally out 
of his majesty’s power to ratify and confirm any act in which 
such expressions were contained.” These expressions, he 
says, he had especially pointed out to the secretary of state, 
which by the way, is a sufficient answer to the secretary’s 
assertion, that he had not given to his meaning the distinct¬ 
ness prerequisite to a just reply. If such precision would not 
satisfy our honest secretary, it would be right in him to set 
an example of precision by saying precisely what he wanted. 
Who knows but that our aspiring secretary sought the 
glory of being brought into a personal “ collision” with the 
king of England, but we must say that mr. Jackson consulted 
better both the dignity of his sovereign, and the interests of 
this country, and showed a true spirit of conciliation by not 
gratifying Robert Smith in his ambitious wish. 

It seems however, that whatever way he acted he was to 
be always in the wrong—if he combined the two objects he 
was wrong, if he separated them he was wrong; and upon 
this as upon all other occasions it is determined that all ver¬ 
bal communications should go for nothing, they are noticed 
only to be denounced as vague and unsatisfactory. The pro¬ 
bability is, and we do not say it without having drawn on 




44 


good sources for our information, that mr. Jackson, like his 
predecessor, kept the two subjects of the Chesapeake and the 
orders in council quite distinct in conversation. This we pre¬ 
sume mr. Smith will not deny, as he has neither denied, or 
authorised his name-sake the editor of the Intelligencer to 
deny, that mr. Erskine’s letters, and more particularly that 
of the fourteenth of august so often referred to, were revised 
and altered by mr. secretary Smith to suit his own purposes. 

It was the original ground assumed by the english govern¬ 
ment, that the Chesapeake grievance should be kept distinct 
from all other points of controversy, and although the mild 
sage of Monticello at first took the studs upon that point, it 
was so palpably reasonable and just, that it was relinquished 
as soon as the extent of mr. Rose’s instructions were known, 
and it was discovered that the negociation could be broken 
off and his mission defeated upon a more plausible ground. 
We see no reason why mr. Jackson should have consented 
to unite the subjects. Indeed we are credibly informed that 
secretary Smith was always desirous of confounding the two 
subjects, and treated the Chesapeake business as one of very 
subordinate importance. 

In the correspondence, which, be it always remembered, 
is begun by the secretary of state, we find that the two sub¬ 
jects, although upon a former occasion separated by consent, 
are by him brought together in the very outset and confound¬ 
ed in the series of proposals, which he states as having pro¬ 
ceeded from the british minister. If that minister in his 
reply assents by implication to such a course, he has in so far 
certainly departed from the rule of negociation laid down by 
mutual consent, but in this respect he can be said only to 
have followed the example set him by the secretary of state. 




45 


NUMBER VII. 


In the commentary contained on this correspondence, 
in the instruction to mr. Pinkney, we are presented only with 
one side of the question. The other is not only carefully 
kept out of view, but mr. Smith affects a kind of confidence, 
that, nothing can be said derogatory to the purity of inten¬ 
tion and integrity of the executive. But when the reports of 
the british minister to his government reach the publick eye, 
we may expect to see things in a very different light, and that 
some of the self-assumed positions under which our secreta¬ 
ry is enjoying an imaginary superiority will wear an entirely 
different aspect. To this are to be imputed the pains taken 
by him to discredit all verbal communications, by cutting off 
mr. Jackson from it after two interviews, and by subsequent¬ 
ly destroying the value of those which had already taken 
place. 

When the publication is made, which it probably will be 
by the british ministry, we shall have an opportunity of 
knowing whether mr. Jackson, did not fully and satisfactori¬ 
ly explain the motives of the disavowal, or shew in what the 
arrangement differed from mr. Erskine’s instructions; whe¬ 
ther or not in speaking of mr. Smith’s “ premonition ” to the 
king of England, he did or did not, and if not, why he did 
not w give to his meaning the distinctness prerequisite to a 
just reply.” We rather suspect that mr. Smith’s resentment, 
which is not a little keen, was kindled by that very “ distinct¬ 
ness” the total absence of which he affects to complain of. 

It should appear that from the first moment of the minis- 
ter’3 communication on this subject, to that of the rupture 
of all communication with him, mr. Jackson had not been 
able to obtain a word even of acknowledgment of the over¬ 
tures he had made respecting the Chesapeake. Although 




46 


the secretary no where denies that he received, and to avoid 
the possibility of miscomprehension had caused them to be 
repeated to him, and had affected to lay them before the pre¬ 
sident, still does he not condescend to let the minister know 
whether his offer of satisfaction is to be admitted or not. It 
is said to have been the first subject of discussion, and the 
offer consequently was made before the alledged offence was 
given to our government, and yet by the confession of the 
secretary nothing like a reply was resolved upon. This, 
however, is easily accounted for. Our sapient rulers thought 
it wise to keep open a subject of irritation and discontent 
between the two countries, lest too much progress should be 
made in their reconciliation. It seems, mr. Jackson, com¬ 
plained both verbally and in writing of this reserve of our 
executive. Such complaints were certainly well founded, for 
whether his proposals were acceptable or not, the least that 
he had a right to expect was a civil answer, to a civil and 
conciliatory suggestion. 

But in this stage of the negociation, we are strongly bewil¬ 
dered by a studied ambiguity of expressions, which character¬ 
ise the despatch to mr. Pinkney, where those things which 
are in themselves most distinct, are purposely, and as law¬ 
yers say, with malice aforethought confounded together. 

The secretary of state remarks upon the written projects 
of the british minister, that he had given a reluctant and in¬ 
distinct explanation of the cause of the disavowal . The cor¬ 
respondence itself contradicts the assertion. The explana¬ 
tion appears to have been given in the very outset, and as to 
the distinctness of what had passed, mr. Jackson appears in 
a very cool way to convey in his letter of the twenty-seventh 
of October, an impression of some impatience at the dullness 
of comprehension, manifested on this head by our secretary. 
We quote the following sentence from the letter mentioned, 
as authority for what we say, 

“Finding by your letter of the nineteenth instant that, 
“ notwithstanding the frequent statements made by me in our 




47 


u conferences of the terms of satisfaction which I am em- 
w powered to offer to this country for the unauthorised at- 
“ tack made by one of his majesty’s ships of war, upon the 
u frigate of the United States the Chesapeake, I have not had 
u the good fortune to make myself distinctly understood by 
u you, &c.” This we must confess has somewhat the ap* 
pearance of a quiz upon the secretary, as it shews that much 
had before passed, which he either would not or could not 
understand, in either of which cases his mental or concilia¬ 
tory faculties were deeply implicated. Mr. Smith, further 
asserts, that the british minister’s proposals, were not pre¬ 
sented until he had made a certain progress in his offensive 
insinuations, but we find in the correspondence that mr. 
Jackson had, before writing his letter of the twenty-seventh 
of October, made those same proposals. So confident is he 
upon that subject that, even in his first letter of the eleventh 
of October, we find him quoting the secretary in these words, 
M you have said that you so fully understood the particulars 
u of that offer , that I deem it unnecessary to recapitulate 
M them here; I regret that since they were so fully under- 
u stood by you , you should not yet have been enabled to state 
“ to me either in our personal communications, or in the 
u letter which I am now answering, whether they are con- 
“ sidered by the president as satisfactory, or whether they 
a are such as he ultimately means to accept .” This extract is 
from his first letter, previous to which it is not pretended that 
any offensive insinuation was made; how then could mr. 
Smith have the assurance to state to mr. Pinkney that mr. 
fackson did not present his proposal until he had made a cer¬ 
tain progress in his offensive insinuations P These offensive 
insinuations it can be little doubted, are to be found only in 
the nature of the conduct which our rulers have adopted 
towards England, and unless controlled by the people will 
persevere in the total destruction of their honour, prosperity 
and happiness. We heartily accord in the sentiments ex¬ 
pressed by mr. Elliott, that unless the administration is con- 




48 


trolled by the people, their liberties are imminently threat¬ 
ened. 

On coming to the secretary’s second head of remarks on 
the written project, which he says “ will suffice,” we are 
overcome with shame at the u gross” ignorance and perver¬ 
sity manifested by a publick functionary of our country, 
holding a situation so pre-eminently ostensible, as to expose 
the american government in an especial manner to the scorn 
and criticisms of foreign countries. 

The secretary in this part of his despatch to mr. Pinkney 
reiterates the blunder of supposing that a minister’s ordinary 
credential letter could bind his government to any act that 
it might suit his fancy to do in its name. He says that this 
was denied by mr. Jackson, and yet he produced no other 
authority for what he was to do. No principle of publick 
law is better settled than, that the unauthorised act of an 
agent is not binding upon his government. In betraying or 
affecting ignorance upon this point, however, the secretary 
does not stand unsupported in the cabinet. The president, 
in his previous message to congress advanced similar princi¬ 
ples, in order to his own justification and the crimination of 
the english government. Particular attention should be be¬ 
stowed upon the following passage from mr. Madison’s mes¬ 
sage, not less remarkable, for its daring boldness, than its 
cunning. 

u Whatever pleas may be urged for a disavowal of engage¬ 
ments formed by diplomatick functionaries in cases where 
by the terms of the engagements a mutual ratification is re¬ 
served, or where notice at the time may have been given of 
a departure from instructions ; or in extraordinary cases, 
essentially violating the principles of equity; a disavowal 
could not have been apprehended in a case where no such 
notice or violation existed; where no such ratification was re¬ 
served, and more especially, where as it is now in proof, an 
engagement to be executed without any such ratification was 
contemplated by the instructions given , and where it had* 



49 


with good faith, been carried into immediate execution, on 
the part of the United States.” 

The positions here laid down are not only objectionable in 
point of fact but untenable in principle according to the most 
approved ancient and modern authorities. For the chief ma¬ 
gistrate of “ the most enlightened nation in the world” to 
commit so flagrant a departure from truth, and to contend 
for principles manifestly against law; the inducements must 
have been potent and enticing. He well knew that in this 
way his conduct could alone be justified, and he esteemed it 
far preferable to attack the whole code of national law and 
to commit a deviation from truth, than to risk his political 
influence. But it is for the people in the cooler moments of 
sober reflection, to examine the truth of the assertions, and to 
test the correctness of the principles advanced by their rulers. 

Mr. Madison says that a disavowal coidcl not have been ap¬ 
prehended in a case where no violation of instructions existed\ 
and where no ratification was reserved . 

In this short sentence a false assertion and a false principle 
of law are advanced. 

In the very teeth of mr. Erskine’s instructions, the presi¬ 
dent asserts that they were not violated, and he contends 
that the right of ratification must be reserved, or there can 
be, rightfully, no disavowal. 

We are at a loss to know in what language to assail mr. 
Madison’s assertion that mr. Erskine did not violate his in¬ 
structions by the april arrangement. The departure from 
instructions is a matter so self evident, and at this time so 
universally admitted, that the falsehood can only be account¬ 
ed for by a reliance upon the ignorance and infatuation of 
the people, and a conviction of its necessity to recover the 
reputation of the cabinet which had been compromitted by 
the fraud and imposition practised upon mr. Erskine on that 
occasion. But it is not the least surprising part of this busi¬ 
ness, that the president, who pretends not to have known 
any thing of the extent and nature of the instructions, should 

G 



50 


contend that they communicated greater powers, or embrace 
ed other objects than those stated by the british minister, 
and appearing upon the face of the instructions themselves. 
Leaving the matter of fact to the conscience of mr. Madison, 
which will be, or is now stung by the keenest remorse, we 
shall proceed to test the principle of national law which he 
has advanced. 

The question is simplified as much as possible, when pre¬ 
sented in the following form : 

Is the act of an agent or ?ninister binding upon his consti¬ 
tuent, zvhen he exceeds or violates his instructions P 

Really it would seem to be a task of offensive superero¬ 
gation to discuss a point so long settled, and the decision of 
which is so perfectly consonant with reason and justice. No 
law can be bottomed in the good and safety of mankind, 
which would expose the dearest rights of a nation to be sa¬ 
crificed by the treachery or misconceptions of an individual. 
But it is urged on the other hand, that such a construction 
opens the door to perfidy and fraud, and places it in the 
power of a faithless nation to inflict serious injuries upon 
those who repose upon their justice. The rule of law be¬ 
ing ascertained and universal, where a treaty or convention 
is agreed upon, part of which is to be executed instanter , to 
guard against a breach of faith the contracting parties have 
a right, and are bound in duty to enquire into the nature and 
extent of the authority which the agents have been respec¬ 
tively invested with by their constituents.-If the author¬ 

ity or instructions be exhibited, and the arrangement or sti¬ 
pulations are concluded in conformity with them, the parties 
are irrevocably bound by every tie of honour and principle 
of justice to carry them into full effect. But if either party 
neglect or think fit to wave his right to be made acquainted 
with the power under which the other acts, he cannot con¬ 
sistently complain, but of his own negligence or indiscretion, 
if the other party refuse to abide by his act. Having the 
right to insist on a disclosure of specific powers, or not to= 




51 


conclude an arrangement, which is in part to be immediately 
executed, if he notwithstanding, do conclude, and proceed 
on his part to the faithful fulfilment of the stipulations, he 
does so at his own peril and responsibility, and his dispens¬ 
ing with a right and incurring a voluntary risk does not 
create an obligation on the other party. These principles 
are perfectly equitable , and we shall now refer to authorities 
to show that they are legal . 

PuffendorfF it is true, is a very old authority, and is hard¬ 
ly recognized in some cases, as authority at all, by modern 
writers on the laws of nations. But we do not weaken our 
positions by quoting him, when his principles are supported 
and corroborated by civilians of a later date. He says that 
a representative cannot legally bind his constituent, unless his 
act is done in good faith to him. u Nam hand quidquam me 
obligabit , quod iste mala fide egit , et ubi per nefariam frail - 
dem me circumvenit. ^uin et hoc includit bona jides , ut quod 
ab isto gestum est , ab honore et commodo mandatis non abhor - 
reat , saltern prout presentia tempora ferunt .” 

Burlemaqui an higher authority than the one just quoted, 
though not frequently referred to at this day, lays it down in 
his chapter, on “ publick treaties in general” that “ treaties 
concluded by ministers oblige the sovereign and state, 
ONLY, when the ministers have been duly authorised to 
make them , and have done nothing contrary to their 

ORDERS AND INSTRUCTIONS.” 

This authority is directly in point, and bears with peculiar 
force upon the case in question. But we need not rely upon 
Burlemaqui , when we can refer to authorities of a more mo¬ 
dern date. As our cabinet are particularly fond of reposing 
the justice of their case upon Vattef we will take them up 
upon their own grounds, and turn their own authority 
against them. 

In book iv. section 77, he says— u by a very well ground¬ 
ed custom any engagements which the minister should enter 
into, are at present of no force among sovereigns, unless ra¬ 
tified by his principal 




Book ii. chapter 12, section 156. “ Sovereigns treat with 
each other by their proxies who are invested with sufficient 
power, and who are commonly called plenipotentiaries. We 
here apply all the rules of the law of nature to things that 
are done by commission. The rights of the proxy are ex¬ 
pressed in the instructions that are given to him : he ought 
not to deviate from them ; but every thing he promises xvithin 
the extent of his powers , binds his constituent. At present, 
in order to avoid all danger and difficulty, princes reserve to 
themselves the ratification of what has been concluded on in 
their names by the ministers, &c. Every thing that their 
ministers have concluded remaining without force, till the 
prince’s ratification, there is less danger in giving him a full 
power. But to refuse with honour to ratify what has been 
concluded on by virtue of a full poxver , it is necessary that 
the sovereign should have strong and solid reasons, and that 
he should show in particular that his minister has deviated 
from his instructions.” 

Again'—Book iv. “ The instructions contain the king’s 
secret mandate , the orders to which the minister must care¬ 
fully conform, and which limit his powers.” 

Now it is sufficient to state, that mr* Erskine had no full 
poxver to conclude what he uniformly calls the provisional 
arrangement, except that which is derived from the <k condi¬ 
tions ” contained in his instructions, (and which our govern¬ 
ment were acquainted with) and those instructions themselves 
show, that he had no power for what he did. Therefore 

IF THEY CONCLUpED WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF HIS INSTRUC¬ 
TIONS THEY WERE PRIVY TO THEIR VIOLATION, AND Ip 
NOT, THEY ACTED AT THEIR OWN RISK. 

We will now refer to another authority of a later date 
than any that we have quoted, which together with those 
we have before quoted fully decide the question as to de¬ 
parture from instructions. 

Martens , book xi, chapter 1, section 3, says, u The par¬ 
ties must have poxver to consent . The treaty must have been 



58 


contracted in the name and by the authority of the sovereign 
power—Any thing that has been promised by the chief, or 
his agent beyond the limits of the authority with which the 
state has entrusted him , is at most , no more than a simple 
promise fsponsio.J which only obliges the person who pro¬ 
mises, to procure its ratification, without binding the state , 
which, of course, may refuse its ratification. On the 
contrary every thing that has been stipulated by an agent in 
conformity to his full powers, ought to become obligatory 
upon the state, from the moment of signing, without ever 
waiting for the ratification. However , not to expose a state 
to the errors of a single person , it is now become a general 
maxim , that publick conventions (but not simple military ar¬ 
rangements in time of war) do not become obligatory 
till ratified. The motive of this custom clearly proves 
that the ratification can never be refused with justice, EX¬ 
CEPT when he who is charged with the negociations, keep - 
ing within compass with respect to his publick full powers , 
El AS GONE BEYOND HIS SECRET INSTRUC¬ 
TIONS, and consequently has rendered himself liable to 
punishment.” 

The authorities which we have taken the trouble to collect 
are all in direct opposition to the pretensions set up by our 
government, and effectually expose the principles laid down 
by the president’s message. Those principles so laid down 
could have been designed for no other purpose than to mis¬ 
lead the judgment of the weak and uninformed, and we en¬ 
tertain too great an opinion of mr. Madison’s knowledge 
of the laws of nations not to believe that he knew them to be 
untenable. But it all tends to show, that it has been consi¬ 
dered indispensable to resort to sophistry, erroneous premi¬ 
ses and false conclusions to support a rotten cause. 

As our honest and enlightened rulers are such sticklers 
for fair dealing and good faith, between governments, and 
are in the habit of so often repeating the charge of perfidy 
against England, v 7 e deem it not amiss, to mention a few 




54 


eases where the amerlcan government has acted in direct 
opposition to the very principles which they now defend.— 
We will pass by the treaty signed by messrs. Monroe and 
Pinkney which mr. Jefferson rejected with contumely, with¬ 
out even laying it before the senate, and cite those which 
admit of less cavil. 

1 st. In the year 1802, mr. Charles Pinkney, furnished 
with due power, made a convention with the government of 
Spain, contracting for regulations compensating our citizens 
and her subjects for certain injuries mutually received. The 
convention was not carried into effect, it was conceived to 
be in some minor details disadvantageous, though many of 
our citizens have to deplore that the relief it embraced was 
cast away. 

2 nd. Mr. King’s convention with the british government 
for ascertaining the northern and eastern boundary of the 
United States was also refused to be ratified by mr. Jeffer¬ 
son, though mr. King’s powers were strictly regarded by 
him in the negotiation. 

3d. We now quote a case which occurred during general 
Washington’s presidency. 

The 12th article of Jay’s treaty made with full power , was 
refused to be ratified for only one of the reasons now urged 
by Great Britain, because it was deemed disadvantageous. 

4th. One of the most essential articles of the treaty with 
France of the thirtieth of September, 1800, was refused to 
be ratified by our government . 

These cases show that it has always been held by our gov¬ 
ernment that a convention or treaty, although concluded in 
virtue of a full power, is not obligatory until ratified. With 
what face then can it now be made a ground of complaint 
against England, that she has refused to ratify a “provi¬ 
sional arrangement” made in direct violation of specifick in¬ 
structions ? According to the best authorities, relied on by 
our government, and cases where they themselves have been 
the party disavowing, the act of a minister is held not to be 




55 


binding until ratified by his principal, still Great Britain is 
perfidious in more than one case in -which she was a party 
because she claims the same rights which we have heretofore 
exercised, and which the laws of nations give to her and all 
other nations. 

In speaking of his full power, we presume the british mi¬ 
nister did not mean to apply it to the case of the Chesapeake, 
for this obvious reason, because he says that which super¬ 
sedes the necessity of any full power at all, viz: that he was 
authorised to carry the conditions he proposes immediately into 
execution . The exhibition of a full power was unnecessary to 
the attainment of our wishes in this particular. The most that 
the secretary in his dear bought experience could require, 
was an inspection of his instructions, such as he says he did 
not obtain from mr. Erskine—However mr. Jackson made 
no difficulties upon this subject. If a full power were wished 
for, mr. Jackson said that he was possessed of one, and 
offered to exchange it against that of the secretary of state - 
Notwithstanding this solemn declaration, superadded to that 
of his having a commission under the seal of the kingdom of 
England , mr. Smith tells mr. Pinkney, u it is clear that the 
authority referred to, whatever it may be, is derived from 
instructions subject to his own discretion , and not from a pa¬ 
tent commission such as might be properly called for” The 
right to call for the exhibition of mr. Jackson’s power is a 
question rendered altogether unnecessary to investigate, in 
as much as he voluntarily offered an exchange of powers.— 
Why was he not taken at his word, by which it would have 
been at once discovered whether or not he was invested with 
such a power. If he had been detected in the attempt im¬ 
puted to him of deceiving our government, mr. Smith would 
have been justified in alleging, a charge of falsehood against 
him to mr. Pinkney. As it is, he has given him the lie direct 
not only without evidence, but in the face of his solemn “as¬ 
severation /” How far the civil and courteous accusation may 
comport with u those principles of decorum xvhich regulate and 




mark the proceedings of governments towards each other ? we 
leave to cliplomatick gentlemen to decide. 

But mr. Smith seems to ground another charge against 
the british minister upon the fact that u his instructions were 
subject to his own discretion .” This too, is done in the teeth 
of the following paragraph from his own letter to mr. Jack- 
son of the first of november, in which he says, u I need only 
add, that in the full power alluded to, as a preliminary to 
negociation, is not intended to be included either the whole 
extent or any part of your instructions for the exercise of it. 
These of course , as you have justly remarked, remain sub¬ 
ject to your own discretion .” And yet mr. Smith grounds a 
complaint to mr. Pinkney upon the declaration that these 
u very instructions were subject to his own discretion.” It 
cannot be concealed that the true grievance was that mr. 
Jackson’s instructions were subject to his discretion instead 
of mr. Smith's —The secretary sought the same indulgence 
that mr. Erskine was so very accommodating as to grant him. 
In his game with that gentleman, though he did not u get out 
by honours,” he won the odd trick by getting a peep into his 
adversary’s hand, and it would have been a mark of weak¬ 
ness and credulity indeed in mr. Jackson after becoming ac¬ 
quainted with the gentleman’s play if he had not taken good 
care to hold his cards close. 

We repeat that the secretary had an excellent opportunity 
if he had thought fit to embrace it to take mr. Jackson at 
his word, and see what sort of a power he had. If it were 
unsatisfactory it would have been time enough and proper to 
say so. But instead of this obvious proceeding, it was found 
more convenient to unite and confound the two parts of the 
negotiation in order that what might be wanting in one to 

make up his story might be taken from the other.--It 

could not be in relation to the Chesapeake that a treaty or 
convention was to be framed. Mr. Jackson expressly sug¬ 
gests in his first letter , that that subject should be disposed 



57 


of by a declaration and counter declaration, and, as we have 
just observed, no where does he seem to apply to it the ne¬ 
cessity of a full power, so that our secretary’s diplomatick 
erudition may have been reserved for a greater occasion than 
in studying the Nootka negociation. He would do better to 
employ it in learning that a minister may be invested with a 
full power and yet have only authority “ eventually ” to con¬ 
clude a treaty. But the secretary affects not to understand 
what was meant by this expression.—He says, “ without ad¬ 
verting to the ambiguity of the term eventually with the mark 
of emphasis attached to it, and to other uncertainties in the 
phraseology, it is clear” and so forth. In what this ambi¬ 
guity and uncertainty of phraseology consist the secretary 
has not taken the trouble to point out.—His prudence in this 
respect has got the better of his boldness and assurance. 
Does it follow that because a minister has a full power he 
therefore must in all events conclude ? The use of a full pow¬ 
er would necessarily be regulated by his instructions, and to 
say that he will only eventually conclude, means that, in the 
event of the two parties agreeing upon the terms which they 
are mutually authorised by their instructions to accept, a 
treaty would be concluded. This is the obvious and indeed 
only meaning, in this case, of the term “ eventually ” whether 
marked with emphasis or not. But the secretary to make out 
his case, lawyer like, twists and tortures it into a thousand 
oblique interpretations if a different construction should pre¬ 
vail, with what security could a minister be trusted with any 
discretionary power whatever at the distance of four thou¬ 
sand miles from his government, unless the quality of keep¬ 
ing his instructions subject to his own discretion is pre-sup- 
posed in a minister ? Our secretary’s reasoning upon this 
subject betrays such an ignorance of his departmental duties, 
that we blush for the exposure which will be thus exhibited 
to astonished Europe. But what better could have been ex¬ 
pected from an unpolished and raw politician snatched from 
H 




58 


an obscure station at the bar of Baltimore, and all at once 
converted into a cabinet minister ? If mr. Madison repent of 
his bargain in a secretary he will do well hereafter to attend 
to the law maxim good among purchasers —Caveat Emptor . 
We have no allusion to bribery. If the secretary is sceptical 
upon this head his brother can inform him that we never 
make “ insinuations,” it is our custom to speak out boldly, 
and accuse without reserve, where an accusation will be ser¬ 
viceable. 




59 


NUMBER VIII. 

PROCEEDING,” as says our secretary, to the propo¬ 
sal itself, it is to be kept in mind that the conditions forming- its 
basis , are the very conditions , for the deviating from which mr . 
Erskine's adjustment xvas disavowed .” We would ask what 
danger could there be that this would not be remembered ? 
The best evidence of good faith which England could have 
given would be a renewal of the offer of those conditions 
which mr. Erskine was instructed to propose—It cannot be 
denied that mr. Jackson was willing and authorised to ac¬ 
cede to them, but he was so far conciliatory in his conduct 
that he would not urge conditions already “ declared to be 
unacceptable.” Whether they were now to be considered in 
the light of an ultimatum, or whether they might not have 
been modified in negociation with mr. Jackson so as to have 
been rendered acceptable, is a question which, but for the 
indecorum and impetuosity of secretary Smith, we need not 
be at a loss to solve. If he had had the decorum to return 
an answer to that minister’s letter, and the command of tem¬ 
per not to have quarrelled with him before the reply was 
known, we should now know with certainty how far it were 
or were not possible to come to some arrangement upon this 
unfortunate subject. 

Whether this were the proper time for recalling all the 
circumstances of the attack on the Chesapeake, except it 
were for the purpose of arousing in favour of the president 
and his secretary the half-appeased sensibilities of the coun¬ 
try, maybe doubted ; but no honest true hearted american, 
or any one not absolutely so abandoned to faction and self- 
interested democracy as to be callous to the honour and 
proud feelings of his country, can doubt that, if the picture 




60 


be not overcharged, if England has in reality committed 
such unheard of and unatoned injuries and insults, our coun¬ 
try has been laid lower by the imbecility and cowardice, if 
not the treachery of the Jelfersons ' the Madisons, and the 
democratick Smiths, than even those who uniformly distrust¬ 
ed them could believe possible. If the picture of our wrongs 
drawn by mr. Madison and sent to our minister in England 
be a just representation, why are not measures taken to heal, 
our wounded honour? Why has mr. Madison shrunk from 
the responsibility of recommending to congress measures 
compatible with the dignity and character of the nation he 
presides over ? He will neither accept nor take honourable 
reparation. He tells his people that the nation’s honour is 
bleeding at every pore ; he essays every art to awaken their 
sensibilities, and still does he fear to point out the mode of 
^ applying or originating the remedy.” What under the cir¬ 
cumstances described in the despatch to mr. Pinkney, would 
have been the conduct of a federal administration ? Would 
they have gone crying about the world, with whining com¬ 
plaints of the affronts that they had received, and announced 
at the same time that they were unable to avenge them as 
became a free and independent people ? Would they have 
adopted the conduct of a pampered, snivelling school-boy, 
who whines out his grievances to some pedantick pedagogue, 
who reads a bloated lecture or remonstrance to his wronger? 
England herself, situated as we are, has set an example 
worthy of imitation. Her ministry presented to the Spanish 
court the conditions upon xvhich alone they would forbear to 
go to zuar; and would not our pseudo-patriots, odious as 
they justly are to every true lover of his country, have had 
the zealous support of a very great portion of their country¬ 
men, if they had imitated the conduct of England ? If the 
administration had made up its mind at once as to the only 
admissible terms of reparation and those terms had been 
just, the nation with one voice would have supported them. 




61 


But instead of this, it is evident that their own minds have 
never been made up as to the atonement which ought to be 
received, and they affect to think it derogatory to the na¬ 
tion’s honour to say what would be a sufficient reparation.'—• 
Upon this subject we agree with the opinion advanced by 
the able and independent editor of The American Citizen . 
“ If,” says he, “ we have a right to demand satisfaction, we 
ought neither to be ignorant of the nature or extent of the 
satisfaction to which we are entitled, nor backward in ad¬ 
vancing our claim . Such backwardness would indicate, at 
least, that our government is undecided, as to the principles 
to which we should adhere.” The same editor of a democra- 
tick paper says further : u The truth is, and I state it with 
old fashioned republican bluntness, the government zvere re¬ 
solved from the commencement, not to negotiate.” 

We shall not here advocate the opinion that the affair of 
the Chesapeake was a just cause of war after England has 
disavowed the conduct of her admiral, and spontaneously 
offered us reparation ; but we may and do declare for our¬ 
selves and all tru*e federalists, that our lives and our fortunes, 
and every connection still more dear to us, would have been 
brought a cheerful sacrifice in this and any other contest in 
which the honour of our country was seriously involved.— 
But true honour and courage will never be satisfied with see¬ 
ing the efforts of the country evaporate in whimpering com¬ 
plaints or empty boastings—in armaments of “ Aquatico 
terrene vehicles,” or unexecuted militia trainings. Peace 
upon just and honourable terms or undisguised war, are the 
only alternatives. But our rulers know that either would 
throw them out of power, and as they “ prefer the people’s 
favour to the people’s good” they will give us neither. 

Let us now see what the terms were that we have for the 
third time rejected. 

1st. It is said that we were to acknowledge that the pro¬ 
clamation of 1807 was unjustifiable. We do not find that 




62 


mi\ Jackson in his letter of the twenty-seventh of October, 
demands any such thing. He does not even ask us to mention 
the proclamation or to say any thing about it. He merely 
u assumed the existing fact,” and goes on to tell us what the 
terms are that he is empowered to offer. Whether those 
terms are such as we should be contented with, may be 
subject to various opinions, but at least those who say they 
are not, should be prepared to obtain better by force of arms. 
They should not hesitate to appeal ad ultimam rationem re- 
gum et rerumpublicarum . 

2nd. We are told that our government Was distinctly and 
peremptorily informed, previous to the secretary’s insulting 
note about the king of England’s honour, and of course pre¬ 
vious to the vapouring paragraph in his despatch to mr. 
Pinkney about the “ murderous transaction,” that no farther 
punishment would be inflicted upon admiral Berkley. That , 
therefore, if it was thought right to insist upon it, was a cause 
of war—but was it dignified, was it manly, was it not mean 
and cowardly, when we found we could obtain no more, to 
accept the insufficient reparation, and to make up the differ¬ 
ence by calling names and using “ murderous” epithets ? 

3dly. We are told by the secretary, that we were called 
on “ to admit a right on the part of great Britain to claim a 
discharge from our service of deserters generally, and par¬ 
ticularly of her natural born subjects, without excepting such 
as have been naturalized in due form under the laws of the 
United States. Here again is the minister grossly misrepre¬ 
sented in his meaning. He offered that the men taken out 
of the Chesapeake should be delivered to this country, re¬ 
serving a right to claim such of them (that is the men taken 
from the Chesapeake) as may be proved to be british subjects 
or deserters from the british service . Is there any thing in 
this offensive, unreasonable, or unjust ? Shall we set up a 
right to encourage british subjects to desert their country’s 
standard, and to harbour and protect these deserters ? Snail 




63 


we go to war with England because she protests against the 
practice and refuses to sanction it ? The special reserve sug¬ 
gested by mr. Jackson no doubt had a view to the very par¬ 
ticular circumstances of these men, who, if we recollect 
right, were encouraged to desert from their ships; who were 
paraded about the streets of Norfolk in defiance of and in 
the presence of their own officers, and whose existence on 
board the Chesapeake was formally arid officially denied—- 
Was this an ordinary case of desertion, or was it not one 
that would have justified at any time a regular application 
for the men’s discharge ? And after all what was to be re¬ 
served ? a right to claim their discharge. This does not ne¬ 
cessarily involve an obligation in our government to accede 
to that claim. Any body may ask a favour or an act of jus¬ 
tice of another ; but it does not of course follow that it shall 
be granted. The admission of this right, which in fact can 
be denied to no power, would not have bound our executive 
to give up the men if they had not otherwise seen reason 
for it.—The british sovereign consistently with his own ho¬ 
nour and duty and affection to his people, could not do less 
than urge his claim to the services of his subjects. 

The other reserve appears to us still less exceptionable. 
The british government was willing to make provision for the 
families of the killed and wounded, but in doing this they 
did not wish to reward the treachery of their own renega- 
does. Could we expect them to do this ? and was there any 
thing dishonourable in admitting a reserve to provide against 
it ? As to the question of naturalization which mr. Smith 
speaks of as though his opinions are to regulate those of fo¬ 
reign nations, we apprehend that whatever may be the facili¬ 
ty which it suits our views to give to the reception of itine¬ 
rant landsmen, or mr. Jefferson’s renegado “ seafaring 
brethren ,” from foreign services, we should never persuade 
those powers to give up the right of enforcing the allegiance 




' 64 


of such persons, which can in no case, consistently with the 
most approved principles of public law, be foresworn. While 
we contend against the right of english impressment, let us 
not deprive England of the services of her subjects. Where 
our sailors are impressed, we have always understood, that 
where a regular and well authenticated application for their 
release is made by our consul to the british admiralty, he is 
not refused, except in cases where an enlistment or marriage 
in the british dominions has subsequently taken place. 




G5 


NUMBER IX. 

AFTF.R the correspondence with mr. Jackson, which 
it has been the purpose of the foregoing reflections to exa¬ 
mine and elucidate, had closed, there was carried on between 
our government and the british mission a sort of extra-official 
communication of which, it appears, mr. Oakley was made 
the organ. It may indeed have been a matter of no small 
difficulty, after the minister himself had been debarred from 
all personal communication with the executive, and then that 
the latter had notified the determination not to receive any 
communication whatever from him, to find a proper channel 
through which an attempt might be made to prevent the ne¬ 
cessity of a complete rupture. After having been twice 
rebuffed in a manner that was at first ungracious and repul¬ 
sive, but which came at last to be highly offensive, it evinced 
no small anxiety to arrive at a conciliatory adjustment and a 
very characteristick spirit of forbearance in mr. Jackson, when 
we find him, notwithstanding all these discouraging appear¬ 
ances, fertile in the invention of means to prevent that catas¬ 
trophe which every well wisher of these states is now deplor¬ 
ing, and which cannot fail to make a deep impression of re¬ 
gret, however mixed with indignation, upon the english 
government. 

When mr. Jackson received secretary Smith’s valedictory, 
or rather maledictory letter of november eighth, he had to 
consider what was the probable result of the situation in 
which he was thus suddenly and unexpectedly placed by that 
letter. Cut off by the mandatory act of the executive from 
all communication with them~exposed to the various ca¬ 
lumnies and misrepresentations to which such a reproof on 
their part could not fail to give rise even amongst the well 
I 




66 


meaning part of the community—a butt to the envenomed 
outrages of a venal herd of french partizans, whose audacity 
could only be equalled by the execrable meanness of their 
scurrility, he had to consider what was most fitting the exi¬ 
gency of the moment, what was at once due to his own personal 
feelings and safety, either separated from, or connected with 
the high and important character with which he was invested. 

That our government had withdrawn from mr. Jackson 
their countenance and support, if not their ultimate protec¬ 
tion, was no longer a matter of apprehension. By making 
themselves a party to the atrocious calumnies with which a 
press disgraceful to the fair fame of our country had endea¬ 
voured to overwhelm that minister, they had torn the veil of 
sanctity, hitherto respected even by the most barbarous 
tribes, with which immemorial usage had until mow covered 
the ambassadorial character, and protected it from insult. 

if the government of “ the most enlightened nation in the 
world” could so far forget the respect due to its own intel¬ 
lectual superiority, what was he to expect from the unen¬ 
lightened crowd who fill our streets, and who like many of 
their betters might think “ a discarded minister” a very le¬ 
gitimate object of their revilings and of their personal vio¬ 
lence ? Neither was mr. Jackson wrong if he anticipated some 
further indecorous attacks upon him from the very quarter 
from which he ought to have received protection in his pub- 
lick capacity, in whatever light the ministry might choose to 
represent his private conduct, or the policy of his court.— 
And yet our secretary in his despatch to mr. Pinkney, affects 
to take umbrage at mr. Jackson’s demand of a protection or 
safeguard for himself and suite. The following is the secre¬ 
tary’s language: 

“ Another ground on which a protection was asked for, is 
the supposed tendency of the language of our newspapers to 
excite popular violence on mr. Jackson’s person. Had he 
been longer and better acquainted with the habits and spirit 
of the american people he probably would never have enter- 




67 


tained an impression of that sort.—If he meant to animadvert 
on the free language of our newspapers, he might justly be 
reminded that our laws, as those of his own country, set 
bounds to that freedom ; that the freedom of british prints, 
however great with respect to publick characters of the United 
States, has never been a topick of complaint, and that sup¬ 
posing the latitude of the american press to exceed that of 
Great Britain, the difference is infinitely this respect 

between the two, than between the british press and that of 
the other nations of Europe.” 

How pregnant with meanness, malignity and contemptible 
littleness is the above extract! How like the Smiths ! But 
what better could be expected from men whom the exalted 
dignity of office cannot inspire with feelings of lofty honour 
and magnanimity? Such low and grovelling insinuations, 
such invidious allusions prove with what accuracy we deli¬ 
neated the features of Amamus . 

But is it not truly surprising indeed that, after the treat¬ 
ment which mr. Jackson received, and the danger which 
threatened him, his request of a protection should be con¬ 
verted into a ground of complaint against him ?—After he 
had been threatened to be tarred and feathered, after his 
effigy had been burnt, after one of our gin-burning legislators 
had declared that had the king of England’s secretary of 
state been on the spot he should have been burnt also, ought 
we really to be surprised that mr. Jackson should think 
it necessary to apply to the executive for that protection 
to which he was so eminently entitled ? Mr. Smith says 
u had he been better acquainted with the habits and spirit of 
the american people, he probably would never have enter¬ 
tained an impression of that sort.” Such a declaration may 
do very well to find its way to foreign governments through 
a despatch to our minister, but will excite ridicule and laugh¬ 
ter at home. Our secretary resided too long in Baltimore to 
be ignorant of the turbulent spirit of the people, and the fa¬ 
cility with which mobs are raised, and excited to acts of 




68 


illegal violence. He well knows that tarring and feathering 
is a favourite democratick amusement, and by a governor of 
this state has been solemnly and officially pronounced con¬ 
sistent with the spirit of the laws and constitution , and the 
usage of our ancestors. Mr. Jackson was denounced at the 
seat of government, and was accordingly considered a fit ob¬ 
ject for popular vengeance. Justice to the two governments, 
and his duty hlmaelf mid family, required of him to de¬ 
mand a safe-guard. 

In other countries it is usual to distinguish the domicil of 
an ambassadour, either by the exposure upon it of his sove¬ 
reign’s arms, or by a written designation of the proprietor’s 
name and quality. That custom may have been thought su¬ 
perfluous in this young nation, which is yet sufficiently un¬ 
sophisticated to be clear of the grosser views and corruption 
of the older hemisphere. We have indeed heard that over 
the hotel of the vendee general may be seen a little eagle and 
an inscription in small characters announcing the official 
abode of the French legation, and we are informed that sim¬ 
ilar devices are to be seen upon the houses of the corps di¬ 
plomatique resident in the capital of the great nation. Here, 
however, no such precaution, until now, had been considered 
necessary. It was reserved for our present philosophical 
rulers to throw a doubt over the national character on one 
of the points which in its transactions with foreign states 
most impressively affects a nation’s honour. 

Having taken neither of these precautions above mention¬ 
ed, which we are told are not usual in England, where the 
observance of decorum towards foreign ministers is better 
understood, we may regard this absence of doubt or fear, 
notwithstanding the unauspicious omens calculated to create 
them with which mr. Jackson was greeted on his arrival, as 
a compliment paid to the native inoffensiveness of our citi¬ 
zens, when left to the unbiassed exercise of their natural 
propensities. We may also suppose that mr. Jackson thought 
it easier to prevent than to remedy an evil that might arise 




69 


out of a popular insult, which the government in the true 
spirit of their official organ The Intelligencer , might find it 
convenient to excite and afterwards pretend to quell. In 
either or both of these suppositions mr. Jackson certainly- 
consulted the interests of both nations in having timely re¬ 
course to the executive. If after the commission of any out¬ 
rage he had come with a grievous complaint of some mis¬ 
chance of this kind that had occurred, would it not have 
been said by administration, “ it was not, indeed, to be an¬ 
ticipated, but why did you not apply in time, in order that 
steps may have been taken to prevent such an outrage ?” 

The secretary affects great surprise at the reasons assign¬ 
ed for the demand of a passport and protection. No such 
surprise ought to have existed, because even independent of 
the motives of mr. Jackson’s application, there were others 
in abundance by which it must be not only justified but ap¬ 
probated. But we have to observe as to the first of those 
mentioned by our secretary, that if we have not been grossly 
misinformed, the said secretary has been, in this instance 
too, guilty of what we will not be so unmannerly as to call 
the lie direct, but of a slight deviation from the strict vera¬ 
city becoming his ostensible situation. We have heard that 
though the affair at Hampton was brought to the knowledge 
of mr. Smith if not of the government, though not perhaps 
in a form of regular complaint by which the secretary might 
have been induced to make some inquiries, and we also 
have heard from pretty good authority, that the subject did 
not “ instantly receive every proper attention.” The publi¬ 
cation lately made of the report of the officers who landed 
at Hampton to their captain, shows how the matter passed. 
The truth of the case is not unknown . And we may there 
compare the unvarnished tale of an individual, supported by 
the testimony of numerous unsuspected witnesses, with the 
bombastick affidavit of a democratick village leader, or law¬ 
yer, who thinks that vapouring at the head of a mob against 
two or three unprotected individuals, and talking of the 




70 


sanctity of his assylum where no attempt was made to vio¬ 
late it, may be a wonderful and irresistable proof of patriot- 
ick spirit. 

As for the other ground—the supposed tendency of our 
newspapers to excite popular violence on mr. J ackson’s per¬ 
son we shall not be suspected of wishing to say any thing 
that may have a u tendency” to abridge the liberty of our 
free discussions—but we must repeat here what we have of¬ 
ten before taken occasion to assert, that the language of min¬ 
isterial prints towards this gentleman, whether in his diplo- 
matick capacity as a minister, or in his individual character as 
a stranger visiting our shores, is altogether unjustifiable and 
is a disgrace to us as a civilized nation. For several weeks 
before it was known that mr. Jackson had sailed for the 
United States, he was assailed in the same violent and dis¬ 
gusting manner in which he has since been pursued. Mr. 
Smith is not ignorant that the government paper joined in 
the general cry set up by the whole democratick kennel, and 
from the style and character of his despatch to mr. Pinkney, 
it is not an extravagant conjecture, that he had some partici¬ 
pation in the inflammatory publications which appeared 
against mr. Jackson before his arrival in this country. But 
what must be the surprise of honest men, when they see an 
executive officer of our country, in order to excuse or paliate 
the licentiousness of the american press, have recourse to an 
implied approbation of that of the continent of Europe. 
Mr. Smith’s allusions to the british press are invidious and 
derogatory to the dignity of our government. They betray 
a grovelling and ignoble spirit which should rather have 
been sought after in an ale-house, than in the cabinet of “ the 
most enlightened nation of the world.” But the secretary 
dwells upon this subject for no other reason, than, as his 
brother says, ad captandunu Such trash may suit the vulgar 
and vitiated palate, but can excite no other sensation among 
men of sense, than contempt and disgust. 




71 


NUMBER X 


The second note, it seems, which mr. Jackson sent by 
the hands of his secretary , mr. Oakley, had not the good 
fortune to obtain mr. Smith’s approbation, either as to its 
form or substance. Mr. Smith speaks of it to mr. Pinkney 
in the manner following. 

“ The second note seems to be essentially intended as a 
justification of the conduct of mr. Jackson, in that part of 
his correspondence which had given umbrage. If he in¬ 
tended it as a conciliatory advance he ought not to have 
preceded it by a demand of passports, nor by the spirit or 
the manner in which that demand was made. He ought in 
fact, if such was his object, to have substituted an explana¬ 
tion in place of his reply to my premonitory letter.—-But 
whether he had one or other, or both of these objects in 
view it was necessary for him to have done more than is at¬ 
tempted in this paper.” 

Here we have a new view, not indeed for the first time 
presented, of democratick diplomacy. A foreign minister, ed¬ 
ucated in the first schools of Europe, is sent, forsooth, to the 
enlightened attorney of Baltimore, to be instructed in the 
mysteries of his profession, and the attorney undertakes to 
premonish him as to the errors into which he might otherwise 
fall. Indeed, we must allow that the expensive embassies 
and various diplomatick establishments of the courts of Eu¬ 
rope, are made to very little purpose when it is necessary to 
have recourse to such channels of instruction. But, howev¬ 
er contemptibly we may, in this instance, think of the advi¬ 
ser, let us examine whether the advice itself be in any de¬ 
gree more worthy of consideration than the giver of it. 

Our secretary says, the note ought not to have been pre¬ 
ceded by the demand for passports, nor by the spirit or 




manner in which that demand was made. We have made 
particular enquiry concerning this point, as it is one that 
might give a peculiar colour to the transaction, and we find 
that our secretary was w^ell informed at the time, and conse¬ 
quently that he knew, when he wrote to mr. Pinkney, that 
the document required was for the purpose of remaining in , 
not of quitting the United States . That mr. Jackson’s stay 
could not be long, after the notification he had received 
from our government, must be obvious enough, and that he 
had abundant and additional reasons to apprehend, after the 
conduct they had observed towards him, an increase of in¬ 
dignity, will not, we think, be denied. We cannot therefore 
agree that either the demand of the passports, qualified as it 
was by the assurance that they were to be used in the country 
and not for the purpose of leaving it , or the motives that 
were assigned for making that demand, were circumstances 
that should have given umbrage to our government, or have 
caused them to neglect the opportunity which the british mi¬ 
nister here again afforded them of renewing the negotiation. 
To be thus fastidious in our pretensions towards other powers, 
we should before hand take care that there be nothing in our 

proceedings at tvhich they might with justice take offence_ 

and whoever has observed the treatment which Great Britain 
and the british ambassador has met with at our hands, will 
not surely pretend that there was not enough in it to excite 
resentment in a mind not previously disposed to friendship 
and conciliation. 

As to the period at which this note was sent, and which 
mr. secretary Smith says ought to have been anticipated, it 
must be in the judgment of every man of common honour 
and feeling, to decide whether the said seceretary’s letter of 
the first of november, was not such as precluded the possibi¬ 
lity at that time of any friendly advance or explanation.— 
He there roundly charges the minister of a great power with 
u improper” conduct, than which a grosser or more insult¬ 
ing charge could not well find its place in a letter raised above 




73 


the style of a democratick newspaper. Is a foreign minister, 
against whom so insolent an attack is made and who has 
fresh in his recollection an attack still more insolent against 
the sovereign of his own country, to sit quietly down and 
beg mr. Smith’s pardon for having dared to assert hk own 
rights, and to vindicate the good faith of his country ?—- 
What there was u improper” in mr. Jackson’s previous cor¬ 
respondence the secretary did not condescend to point out. 
As to the irrelevancy of his allusions, mr. Jackson replied 
in the only way in which the charge would admit of a reply, 
and with perfect temper and decorum. Had the secretary 
specified what he meant by u improper allusions,” it is pro¬ 
bable, that the minister would have answered that charge 
also more specifically, although, whether it were general or 
particular, we must confess that he seems to have put it up¬ 
on the most correct footing, by saying that he was not an¬ 
swerable to the secretary but to his own sovereign on such a 
point—but at the same time to denote that he was not insen¬ 
sible of what was due to our government, and that conse¬ 
quently he could have no intention of offending it; he adds,. 
“ Beyond this point it suffices, that I do not deviate from 
the respect due to the government to which I am accre¬ 
dited.” 

Will the secretary be kind enough to inform the people, 
what were the several irrelevant and improper allusions on 
which he so kindly says, that he will not make any particu¬ 
lar animadversions ? We are left to guess at his meaning, 
which he has for very sufficient purposes, made obscure and 
even unintelligible. In so doing, we find only two allusions 
in mr. Jackson’s letter, the first relating to Augereau's pro¬ 
clamation to the Catalonians, the second to the rejection, 
by our late and present president, of mr* Monroe’s trea¬ 
ty. As to the first, we imagine mr. Smith will not say, 
that we were to become all at once, so chivalrous as to 
take under our republican protection the autocratical repu¬ 
tation of the great Napoleon and his satellites. What! is our 
K 




74 


country upoii a footing of such close and sentimental intima¬ 
cy with his imperial majesty ? is that majesty so very sacred 
in our eyes, that our secretary could not bear even the breath 
of improbation to be puffed upon the immaculate reputation 
of one of his myrmidons ? Was the cut-throat notoriety of 
the butcher Augereau, a fit subject on which to display our 
nice and fastidious delicacy in receiving a communication 
from another power ? What more could we have done, if 
France, instead of plundering our citizens and burning their 
vessels, which gives so little umbrage to our executive, had 
really been the good and faithful friend which the Jeffersons 
and Madisons wish their deluded fellow citizens to believe 
that she is ? Or, let it be asked, have we ever shown a si¬ 
milar alacrity in protecting the impeached veracity, or in 
vindicating the offended delicacy of the british government • 
Has the french diplomacy afforded no occasion on which we 
might have exercised the same scrupulous regard to the re¬ 
putation of a third party ? In replying for instance as our 
secretary must unquestionably have done, to count Cham- 
pagny’s letter, dated Altenburg, august the twenty-second, 
has he told him that he made several u improper and irrele¬ 
vant allusions,” when he talked of England being returned 
to a state of barbarism, and being willing to sell her prison¬ 
ers as slaves ; speaks plainly of her mercantile avidity , (a ve¬ 
ry improper allusion when addressed to an american) of her 
maritime tyranny; of her arbitrary acts; and kindly “ insi¬ 
nuates” that if the United States do not see all these matters 
in the same light with himself, they are unmindful of their 
independence, of the maintenance of their honour, of their 
sovereignty, and their dignity. 

If mr. Jackson did indeed intend the note now under con¬ 
sideration as a justification of his conduct, he must be not a 
little mortified to find that an attempt to propitiate such a 
man as Robert Smith had met with such a reception—but we 
confess that we do not any where see a trace that mr. Jack- 
son had thought any justification of his conduct necessary. 




however, well satisfied he may have been to place things in 
such a situation, that the negotiation may have been renew¬ 
ed. He has all along moved in the straight and even path 
of his official duty, and in the same he appears willing to 
progress when he says that in the exercise of his duty “ he 
could not imagine that offence would be taken at it by the 
american government, as most certainly none could be in¬ 
tended on his part.” To a man of honour such an explana¬ 
tion would have been held sufficient, but as our government 
from the commencement never intended to negotiate, it 
could not be expected that this opportunity would be impro¬ 
ved, to affect a reconciliation. 




NUMBER XI 


HE secretary tells us (that is the people of America 
and of England, for whom, rather than for mr. Pinkney, we 
must again observe that this despatch was intended) that 
whatever object mr. Jackson had in view, it was necessary that 
he should do more than is attempted in the note in question. But 
what it was that he required of him is not told us, nor does 
this appear any where to have been distinctly stated to mr. 
Jackson himself. We have heard indeed, that some general 
notification was made to him, that his note was not quite 
satisfactory, and that, to be received again within the pale of 
our republican community, he must furthermore tranquilize 
the uneasy conscience of Robert Smith, by certifying under 
his hand and seal of office that the secretary had, at the time, 
no knowledge that mr. Erskine was violating his instruc¬ 
tions.—We have heard also that this proposal, which was 
wrapt up in a great many phrases of difficult and doubtful 
import, appeared so strange to the british minister* that he 
sent a third note, which has not yet been made publick, to 
require an exact specification of what was wished from him, 
and that mr. Oakley , who was the hearer of this overture too 
was turned out of the room before he could obtain permission 
to deliver it; and that it was by this act of rude and abrupt 
deportment on the part of mr. Smith that the last scene of 
this unfortunate drama was closed. 

Such, we know was the report current at the time in 
Washington, and in circles were the truth was likely to be 
ascertained. Unless mr. Smith is more callous and harden¬ 
ed than even we suppose him, he will not venture a denial 
of what we state. We will not undertake to certify it of our 
own knowledge , but it will be easy if unfounded for the many 
satellites of the Smith confederacy with which this city 



abounds, to contradict the version; and to state what more 
in fact was required of the british minister as the sacrifice of 
atonement for his supposed offences. 

It was never , says the scretary , objected to mr . Jackson , 
that he had stated as a fact that the three propositions in 
question had been submitted to me by mr. Erskine; nor that 
mr. Canning’s despatch containing those three conditions 
was the only one from which his authority was derived, to 
conclude an arrangement on the matter to which it related. 
We beg our readers to pause with us for an instant to recon¬ 
sider the structure of this paragraph, the most portentous, 
perhaps of the whole series of the most extraordinary pro-, 
duction now under our consideration, this sentence contains 
the whole essence of our secretary's defence , and the main 
point upon which his special pleading will be made to turn. 
Those who take only a cursory view of this sentence will per¬ 
haps be at a loss to discover wherein the mystery consists. 
But there will not, we are persuaded, be wanting others who 
will perceive that in one part of the sentence the three famous 
conditions are denominated such ; and in another they are 
called merely w propositions .” The finesse of this distinction 
was, we own, hidden so deep under the surface that we were 
ourselves at a loss to discover the full importance of it ; but 
after a little enquiry and reflection, we undertake to give the 
following as the true explanation of the artifice. 

The conditions were prescribed as such to mr. Erskine, and 
were therefore the precise rule by which he was to regulate 
his conduct; and in as far as he deviated from them, in so 
far it is acknowledged that he violated his instructions, and 
afforded his government a just motive for disavowing him. 

But this, it is at the same time maintained, was a mat¬ 
ter essentially between him and his court, and it is sufficient 
for this country, that he never made known to us these con¬ 
ditions.—So far from it, so far was the secretary from ever 
supposing that there existed any such conditions, he only 
remembers mr. Erskine one day walking casually into his 




78 


room, and telling him that he had some proposals to make 
to him, which having scarcely listened to, the secretary 
laughed at him, and the whole matter ended in a joke.—As 
the two parties here concerned are celebrated for a certain 
degree of facetiousness, we were at first disposed to believe 
that they might have selected this as a fit occasion for exer¬ 
cising their jocularity at the expense of the embargo and non¬ 
intercourse, as it is often seen in the world, that as an old 
friend can be no otherwise made useful, he is still reserved 
to pass an occasional joke upon.—We however, reflected that 
the two individuals in question, although themselves of little 
intrinsick weight, did nevertheless represent, the one the 
sovereign of a great empire, and the other the seventeen 
stripes of this rising republick ; and it occurred to us, that it 
would be doing them great injustice in their professional ca¬ 
pacities to admit the possibility that they should have treated 
thus lightly so grave and important a subject. 

Whilst we were thus musing, the Washington mail brought 
to our office the documents which accompanied the president’s 
message to congress, and in turning to page thirty-two of the 
official edition, we found mr. Jackson quoting from a des¬ 
patch sent by his predecessor to mr. Canning, in which he 
says that u he had submitted to mr . Smith's consideration, 
the three conditions specified in his instructions and that he 
had received from him verbatim et seriatim observations 
upon each of the three conditions: and , moreover , certain rea¬ 
sons which induced mr. Smith to think that others might be 
substituted in lieu of them ”—The perusal of this passage in 
mr. Jackson’s letter of the eleventh of October, afforded us, 
we own, no small relief from the apprehension we were about 
to entertain, that the most important affairs of the two coun¬ 
tries were treated by the ministers on either side with so 
much levity. For we here find a due solemnity in the pro¬ 
ceedings of the two negotiators, and a careful, if not a labo¬ 
rious operation of their minds, as applied, with becoming 
reflection, to the topicks under their consideration, so that 




79 


it would be difficult, if not impossible to say that they had 
shown any unfit levity or inattention upon the occasion. 

First we find the british envoy mr. Erskine, submitting to 
the consideration of our foreign secretary, the three condi¬ 
tions which formed the substance, (and the whole substance 
be it remembered) of his instructions: here then, the secreta¬ 
ry must have given to them his full consideration , must have 
viewed them in all their bearings, and must have made him¬ 
self master of their full and entire meaning ; for we see, se.- 
condly, that he observes upon each of them to the british en¬ 
voy. We are not told what was the purport of these obser¬ 
vations, but we are led to conclude that they contain the 
grounds for rejecting the three conditions, and that their ob¬ 
ject was, in fact, to reject them, since it appears, thirdly, that 
mr. Smith stated to mr. Erskine his reasons for thinking that 
other conditions might be substituted in lieu of those which 
were contained in mr. Erskine’s instructions, and which he 
had, as before said, made known to mr. Secretary Smith. 

Such we perceive by mr. Jackson’s statement to have been 
the progress of this part of the negotiation ; and so natural 
does it appear in itself, and so analagous to what we con¬ 
ceive to be the ordinary course of such transactions, that we 
should have thought little farther about it, had we not remem¬ 
bered that this was an unilateral representation, and that it 
became us to enquire progressively, to see what mr. Smith 
himself would say of it. 

At page forty-six we gather from our secretary the follow¬ 
ing declaration, as it is addressed to mr. Jackson in answer to 
the foregoing statement. “ Certain it is that your predeces¬ 
sor did present for my consideration, the three conditions 
which now appear in the printed document—that he was dis¬ 
posed to urge them more than the nature of two of them 
(both palpably inadmissible and one more than inadmissible) 
could permit; and that, finding his first proposal unsuccess¬ 
ful, the more reasonable terms comprised in the arrange¬ 
ment respecting the orders in council were adopted. ? 




80 


Here again we see the full operation of the minds of both 
negotiators, as represented by the second of them to whom we 
have had recourse*—We see nearly the same statement made 
by mr. Smith as by mr. Erskine of the manner in which the 
transaction passed, we see that it was invested with all the 
gravity and fore-thought due to the occasion, and w r e are 
therefore compelled to believe that our friend the secretary 
has been misinformed as to the truth of this matter, and that 
in fact no such trifling occurred as that which would, from 
his representation, appear upon the face of this transaction. 

This conclusion we must own, involves us in a dilemma 
of another sort. What, for instance, are we to believe of 
that man who, after so gravely, so considerately, so circum¬ 
stantially, negotiating with another upon certain conditions, 
should, in the face of his own admission of the fact, have the 
effrontery to say that these conditions were totally unknown to 
him, and at another moment, sliding away from this false¬ 
hood to declare that mr. Erskine presented them only as 
proposals ■—had laid no great stress upon them, and had pro¬ 
ceeded by an easy transition, to adopt the more reasonable 
terms of the april arrangement. Is not this shuffling pre¬ 
varication, falsehood, beyond any thing that the annals of 
pettifogging ever before presented ? Is it thus that “ the 
most enlightened nation upon earth” is to be represented in 
its intercourse with foreign nations ? Oh shame ! where is thy 
blush ? Oh secretary ! where wilt thou seek refuge from the 
indignation of men ? 

If we understand the english language, a condition means 
a thing which is given or received in return for the perform¬ 
ance of some other condition or engagement. Diplomatick 
usage has indeed so far strengthened the common accepta¬ 
tion of the term, as to super-add the latin words u sine qua 
non ” to imply that the proffered condition is not to take ef¬ 
fect without the other condition or equivalent, which is in 
the contemplation of the offering party, being obtained. In 
this light we are to understand that mr. Erskine’s instruc- 



81 


tions of the twenty-third of january were given to him and 
accordingly presented to our secretary. If he was neverthe¬ 
less seduced by the wily arts of our diplomatick Lothario to 
depart from the path so plainly chalked out for him, and to 
adopt other conditions, it may indeed, as is now maintained, 
be a question essentially between him and his government, 
but it can be no matter of surprise, much less of complaint, 
that his government disavowed him, nor can it afford a pre¬ 
tence for our government to say that the conditions, upon 
which, and upon which alone, he was authorised to treat, 
were unknown to them. 


L 




82 


NUMBER XII. 


“The OBJECTION WAS THAT A KNOWLEDGE OF THIS 
RESTRICTION OF THE AUTHORITY OF MR. ERSKINE WAS IM¬ 
PUTED TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND THE REPETITION OF THE 
IMPUTATION EVEN AFTER IT HAD BEEN PEREMPTORILY DIS¬ 
CLAIMED.” 

This sentence of mr. Smith’s letter of instructions to mr. 
Pinkney contains what lawyers would call the corpus delic¬ 
ti, the whole sum and substance of the british minister’s of¬ 
fence, the matter of the indictment; and upon this issue 
must the question doubtless turn between our government 
and those who think that they have acted in this momentous 
affair, with violence, and a total disregard to the interests 
of the country. To a calm and deliberate enquiry into this 
point, therefore, we propose to devote some portion of this 
days paper, and considering ourselves as composing a part 
of the grand inquest of the nation before whom our rulers 
have thought proper to drag a foreign envoy, we do not 
shrink from the duties imposed upon us in that capacity ^ 
in spite of base combinations against us, and we call upon 
the accusers to make good their charge. We must however, 
as it is the bounden duty of all who exercise so sacred a func¬ 
tion, divest our minds of all extraneous impressions, and, 
without attending to the many intemperate and therefore 
suspicious representations of the case with which the govern¬ 
ment papers and the government agents have endeavoured 
to prepossess the public, confine our attention solely to the 
evidence that is brought before us, and conscientiously give 
our verdict upon its merits. 

Our readers will perceive that in placing the matter in 
this light, we go beyond the verge which strict candour and 
impartiality to both parties would mark out, and whatever 




83 


there be of error or unfairness in so doing must be placed to 
the account of there being no farther testimony within our 
reach, and of our having, we confess, with every inclination 
and firm purpose, strictly to observe our own rule, still some 
small portion of national biass, and a repugnance which ev¬ 
ery true american must feel, to see his government placed 
in the wrong. If we lay aside, therefore, the representa¬ 
tions and publications of their partizans upon this subject, 
we must remember that we are called upon to pronounce an 
accusatory verdict, to find or not to find a true bill, and 
that we are debarred from hearing either what the accused 
would say to us, if we could call upon him for his defence, 
or what he has already said to his own constituents, who are, 
properly speaking, his competent judges, and without whose 
declaration an impartial world will not hastily pronounce a 
judgment upon the case on which zve are about to form and 
deliver an opinion. 

In examining the correspondence with the most scrutiniz¬ 
ing eye, we can find only two passages on which we suppose 
that the secretary of state means to support the charges made 
in the indictment, viz—the imputation , and the repetition of 
it. In fact we may and must assume them as the evidence 
on his part of what would be called the overt acts of the case, 
because there are, throughout the wdiole series of the letters 
no other passages which in any way relate to the charge be¬ 
fore us. 

First, then, we we will give mr. secretary Smith an ad¬ 
vantage to which he is not in fact strictly entitled, by admit¬ 
ting a piece of a priori evidence, which he has not himself 
brought forward, but which we find in mr. Jackson’s first 
letter of the eleventh of October. 

He there states as follows, in answer to a letter conveying 
if not a direct charge at least a very gross insinuation of bad 
faith against his government, that u it was not known when 
I left England, whether mr. Erskine had, according to the 
liberty allowed him, communicated to you in externa his 




84 


original instructions. It now appears that he did not.” 
Here we should pause and say that these seven words would 
be sufficient to repel the charge, and we should upon the 
strength of them decide the case, if it were not possible that 
in going through the letters, some other contradictory pas¬ 
sage might be found to invalidate or perhaps altogether to 
do them away. What does mr. Jackson next say? “But 
in reverting to his (mr. Erskine’s) official correspondence, 
and particularly to a despatch addressed on the twentieth of 
april to his majesty’s secretary of state for foreign affairs, 
I find that he there states that he had submitted to your con¬ 
sideration the three conditions specified in those instruc¬ 
tions and farther, after speaking of the observations made 
by mr. Smith upon those conditions, and of the terms that 
were substituted in lieu of them, he says, “ but the very act 
of substitution evidently shows that those original conditions 
were in fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by 
you of course laid before the president for his considerat¬ 
ion.” 

Now here, if any where, is to be found the gross insult 
and imputation so often mentioned ; for what comes after¬ 
wards will be seen to be only a repetition of this observation 
and of the information leading to it. And do we here find 
one word, or even hint about the restriction of the authority 
of mr. Erskine ? Nothing in fact appears of it, nothing in¬ 
deed could have entered the writer’s mind, because, as mr. 
Erskine’s instructions contained three simple propositions 
which were or were not to be accepted as the price of the or¬ 
ders in council, there could be no idea of putting a negative 
injunction in addition to them, and saying w you shall not 
upon any other terms, agree to the revocation of the orders.” 
Had it been the business or wish of mr. Jackson to inculpate 
the government, he would have gone beyond his present ob¬ 
servation, and would have asked mr. Smith whether mr. 
Erkine ever told him that there were other conditions con¬ 
tained in his instructions, by which he was authorised to con^ 




85 


elude the agreement which he did. This question must have 
been answered in the negative—Mr. Erskine never could 
and never did pretend that his instructions authorised what 
he did. It is known to many persons who can bear wit¬ 
ness to the fact, that in their presence, shortly after signing 
the agreement, he expressed doubts to mr. Smith of its be¬ 
ing ratified, and this must of necessity lead us to suppose 
that something of a similar tendency passed at the time of 
the signature, and must, at all events, make it appear some¬ 
what strange that so much surprise should be testified at the 
disavowal. 

Let us now analize mr. Jackson’s expressions. It is said 
he conveys an imputation. This, then, must be in the shape 
of a possitive assertion—and we find no such assertion in the 
printed correspondence. It is not pretended ; he asserts on¬ 
ly, that the three conditions were made known to mr. Smith : 
or the imputation may be implied ,* and this, if we abide by 
the secretary’s own letter of the first of november, must be 
his meaning. He speaks there of a language implying “ a 
knowledge,” &c. How is this implied ? or if it be so, does 
not the secretary himself furnish grounds for it ? Mr. Jack- 
son says the conditions were made known to mr. Smith, who 
acknowledges the truth of the declaration. Thus far, then, 
there is no contradiction between them—they are agreed. 
But what (if any) is the conclusion which mr. Jackson draws 
from this fact ? Does he add— u Tou must therefore have 
knozvn that mr. Erskine was not authorised to do what he did .” 
No—he says nothing like it. His inference is altogether un¬ 
connected with such a declaration. It goes only to that he 
evidently has all along had in view, and which he would have 
been altogether unworthy his station, if he had not maintain¬ 
ed. He says, u the conditions were communicated to you— 
you therefore know them—compare them with the agree¬ 
ment you made, you will then see that mr. Erskine violated 
his instructions, and you will then also see that his govern¬ 
ment had a right to disavow him.” This is the chain of rea- 




86 


soning which mr. Jackson appears to us to have followed. 
We take it abstractedly, and upon the merits only of the 
passages which we have quoted ; but if taken in connection 
with other passages, and upon a fair review of the whole 
context, the conviction is irresistible to our minds that no 
other meaning can be applied to him. 

We proceed now to his letter of the twenty-third October, 
upon which, although it is only a repetition of a former let¬ 
ter, the secretary of state has thought it most convenient to 
ground his charge. 

After acceding to the demand of our government by giv¬ 
ing the reasons of the disavowal, mr. Jackson here says, 
“ These instructions (mr. Erskine’s) I now understand by 
your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I 
took the liberty of making in mine of the eleventh instant, 
were, at the time in substance made known to you; no 
stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation 
from them which occurred than by a reference to the terms 
of your agreement.” What then is here again the object of 
mr. Jackson? No other than to show that, as mr. Erskine 
had violated his instructions, the arrangement made by him 
might of right be disavowed. This is the simple course of 
the proceeding. The british minister says u my predecessor 
violated his instructions.” The secretary of state asks in 
what respect—to which he is answered that, as he himself 
knew the conditions on which mr. Erskine was authorized 
to conclude, he might himself compare them with the agree¬ 
ment and would see in what he had disobeyed his orders. 
It is true that mr. Jackson might have himself enumerated 
the terms both of mr. Erskine’s instructions and of the april 
arrangement, and have saved mr. Smith trouble by drawing 
himself the comparison, but as mr. Smith professed to be 
acquainted with the former, and could not but be well ac¬ 
quainted with the latter, and might appear to be a more na¬ 
tural as well as a shorter mode to refer him to the view 
which he might himself take of the subject. But in doing 




87 


this, does he maintain any thing that the secretary had de¬ 
nied ? On the contrary he only accepts the secretary’s own 
declaration, and takes up a position which results from his 
(the secretary’s) own letter. The conclusion at which mr. 
Jackson aims, and we may say, arrives, is one from which 
his opponent might think it right to dissent. He says w from 
the terms of mr. Erskine’s instructions and the communica¬ 
tion of them so made, and admitted by you to have been 
made, I derive the right of my court to disavow the arrange¬ 
ment. Mr. Smith may dispute this right, and deny it upon 
any ground that he pleases, but we deny that in the main¬ 
tenance of it that there is any thing that can be construed 
into an offence to our government, much less into that sort 
of outrageous insult, which would alone justify the course 
that has been pursued. 

From this we must proceed to mr. Jackson’s letter of the 
fourth of november, which, although it was written in an¬ 
swer to one of the most insolent and irritating attacks that 
ever was made by one minister upon another, we shall con¬ 
sider only as it does or does not corroborate and identify it¬ 
self with the preceding quotations from his former letters.—• 
It must be remembered however, as inseparably connected 
with the charge we are examining, that this letter of mr. 
Jackson of the fourth of november is the first that was writ¬ 
ten by him under the direct influence of the charge, and 
for the purpose of repelling it. In his preceding letters, 
he does not even appear to have suspected that the 
government had taken offence, but as they treated the 
subject, as they have since said, argumentatively, so he 
meets them on that ground, and assuming their own data, 
argues with them in favour of the right of disavowal. Here, 
however, he is told unequivocally that his arguments had 
given offence, and that, having used a language implying 
something that was denied here, such insinuations were in¬ 
admissible. This is the charge now under consideration, 
and we must see how mr. Jackson meets it, whether as our 





88 


government says, by reiterating and even aggravating the 
insult, or, as it is maintained by others, by a denial of the 
charge, not unaccompanied by something like an impulse of 
indignation at such a charge having been made. “ You will 
find,” says he to mr. Smith, u that in my correspondence; 
with you I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that 
did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by 
me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation 
where I was unable to substantiate a fact.” What then are 
the conclusions which mr. Jackson avoided drawing ? Those 
of which he is accused. What are the premises advanced 
by him ? That the three conditions were communicated to 
mr. Smith.—What the conclusion, in his opinion, which ne¬ 
cessarily follows from this fact ? Why that his government 
had a right to disavow mr. Erskine, and that that right 
must nozv be known to our government, because they have 
been informed that the three conditions were the only terms 
on which he was authorised to make any arrangement. 
Does he any where say that they knew it at the time of 
making the arrangement ? He does not. He on the contrary 
expressly says that they obtained that information from him¬ 
self. “ I have the honour of informing you that it was the 
only one by which the conditions on which he was to con¬ 
clude were prescribed.” How would he have thought of 
inserting this sentence in his letter of the eleventh of Octo¬ 
ber, when he meant to charge the executive with knowing 
the circumstance mentioned in it on the nineteenth of april 
preceding. He knew that mr. Smith was under a contrary 
impression. From mr. Smith himself he had learnt that it 
was believed that mr. Erskine had two sets of instructions 
by one of which the arrangement was authorised ; and it 
was to do away this belief he gives him the information that 
such was not the case, that he had but one instruction. Mr. 
Jackson, therefore, in this very act acknowledges that this 
government did not know what they pretend to be imputed 
to them, but that they were under a contrary, although er- 




89 


r6neous impression; he would not otherwise have given 
them the information which he does in order to set them 
right. Are then the premises of which mr. Jackson speaks, 
those which we have here adduced ? We are bound to say 
that they are, because no other are any where discoverable. 
Does the conclusion which mr. Jackson has drawn, viz.— 
the right of disavowal, follow from them ? This may be a 
question of public law which it is not the purpose here to 
solve, but to our understandings it is quite clear that mr. 
Jackson contends for no other, and that consequently no 
offence need be taken at what he says. 

But it is no where said that he asserted what has given 
so much offence here. It is implied only in his letter, for 
he insinuates it. This he meets with something more than 
a negative. He denies having drawn the offensive conclu¬ 
sion, but u least of all,” he adds, u should I think of uttering 
an insinuation where I was unable to substantiate a fact 
which was the same thing as saying, I will not insinuate 
the faet, because I cannot substantiate it, and mr. Jackson 
had previously admitted that the fact did not exist. Of the 
truth of this double denial, our conviction is contained in 
what has already been said—and we shall only now further 
say, that the charge which was here made upon mr. Jack- 
son, that of having insinuated something that he could not 
or would not assert, contained in it something so mean and 
dishonourable, that we only wonder that he did not repel it 
in terms of stronger and more lively indignation than are to 
be found in his reply to the secretary of state. 


M 




90 


NUMBER XIII. 

JT will be seen by what has already been said, that 
we have abstained from putting this subject on any other 
footing than that of a gross insult upon our government by 
the british minister. We have gone through all the evidence 
which has been adduced, and we are bound, before God, 
our country and our conscience, to indorse the bill of indict* 
ment u not found” 

Our government has not made good the charge thus pre¬ 
ferred, and on them must therefore fall the odium of hav¬ 
ing brought forward a false accusation. With the american 
people too they have a heavy account to settle, and they 
must not expect that, having to satisfy them, carried our 
enquiries into the inmost recesses of a stranger’s mind, we 
shall shrink from examining the conduct (and the motives 
of it) which they have displayed upon the present occasion. 
After all, the publick of this country forms but a partial tribu¬ 
nal, naturally biassed, as we have before confessed ourselves 
to be, by an excusable partiality, to whatever even in its fail¬ 
ings, is american. The world at large will judge how far a 
spirit of conciliation has, from the beginning appeared in the 
divers acts of our government towards the british minister, 
and how far he was or was not justified in writing what he has 
written in the circumstances in which he was placed ,* and 
more especially whether those circumstances were not of a 
nature to prove a total disinclination, on the part of the pre¬ 
sident and his secretary, to come to any attainable terms of 
accommodation with Great Britain. 

The outcry that was raised against that country as to the 
disavowal of Erskine’s arrangement (an outcry that origin¬ 
ated in sinister and party purposes, since our government 




91 


knew as well then as they do now, that the disavowal itself 
was unjustifiable upon every principle of publick law, (as it 
has been proved to them upon the strength of their own 
quotations)—the abuse, savage and unprecedented, even 
among savages, which was heaped, first in the columns of 
the government paper, on the minister who was upon his 
way to negotiate with us for a right understanding of past 
differences—the continuation of this and similar outrages 
upon his arrival, and during his residence amongst us—the 
pains taken by government to produce towards him discre¬ 
ditable luke-warmness in others, and to discourage those 
hospitable habits of social intercourse which have hitherto 
distinguished this country—these were all circumstances 
not tending to a friendly or conciliatory understanding.— 
Then again in official transactions—the studied and prede¬ 
termined absence of the president from the seat of govern¬ 
ment, when it was announced to him that a british minister 
was on his way thither—the impertinent civility of our Bal¬ 
timore secretary in going for two days to Washington 
“ to take a look ” at the new minister, and to see, if possible, 
“ zvhat stuff'he zvas made offf and returning immediately to 
enjoy himself in his private residence when he ought to have 
been engaged in his official duties—the denial, six days after 
our minister’s introduction to the executive, of all personal 
access and verbal intercourse, of which we agree with him 
in thinking that there does not exist another instance in the 
annals of diplomacy—the uncourteous style of the secretary 
of state’s first letter to him, in which he purposely misre¬ 
presents the tenure of his overture—we say purposely , be¬ 
cause when corrected in this respect, mr. Smith does not 
refrain from repeating, in every subsequent letter, and in 
the most contumelious manner, the same imaginary state¬ 
ment which had been denied by the british minister—lastly, 
the rude and insolent attack made upon him in the letter of 
the fourth of november, which led to the still more censur- 




92 


able, because more premeditated, measure of his dismissal, 
and which was followed by the undignified and disgusting 
topicks of abuse again circulated by the government, through 
their own immediate newspaper the Intelligencer, and others 
not less under their controul -these and other topicks, will 
in due time, form a proper ground of enquiry into the con¬ 
duct of our government, as the best interests of the country 
are involved in it. 

We shall not be deterred from entering into this enquiry 
by the insidious measures that have been resorted to of ma¬ 
king the legislative body a party to the errors, misrepresent¬ 
ations and absurdities of the executive. Mr. Giles’s reso¬ 
lutions were designed to carry along the discontented rabble 
and the confirmed partizans of France, who are always rea¬ 
dy to go to any extremity. With men of intelligence, who 
have a real interest in the nation’s welfare, they will excite 
no other feelings than those of horror and disgust. They give 
to the whole transaction a character of vulgar ferocity, that 
must of necessity lower us in the estimation of other na¬ 
tions. 

The only remaining particular in mr. Smith’s despatch to 
mr. Pinckney, is the enclosure of a circular letter, said to 
have been addressed by mr. Jackson to the british consuls 
in the United States. That this letter was written and sent 
by that gentleman to the persons who are subordinate to 
him in the british agency, we are to take for granted, be¬ 
cause, as was said by a member of the house of represent¬ 
atives, it has never been denied. There could indeed be 
no motive for this denial since it is sdmitted on all hands, 
that in writing the letter mr. Jackson was only exercising a 
legitimate, and in the circumstances of the case, an highly 
necessary part of his official duty. Whether the object of 
the letter were to make known to the consuls mr. Jackson’s 
change of residence, or the motives of that change, is a 
question into which it is altogether impertinent in mr. see-* 




93 


retary Smith to enter. If mr. Jackson had determined up¬ 
on appealing to the people, he would not have been at a loss 
to bring forward a multiplicity of other grounds, upon which 
he might well think that such an appeal, if otherwise justi¬ 
fiable, would be successfully attended to. 

Mr. Smith complains, that the letter is a repetition of 
what had been previously addressed to our government, and 
draws from this an argument in support of the absurd no¬ 
tion that, some half dozen lines thrown into the form of a 
circular letter addressed to the british consuls, was designed 
as an appeal to the people . Mr. Smith has reason to be too 
well acquainted with the acuteness and sound judgment of 
mr. Jackson to believe that, if he really designed the letter 
as an appeal he would not have selected out of such a mul¬ 
tiplicity of good causes of complaint, some that would have 
found their way directly to the feelings of the people. But 
the more grievous matter of allegation against this circular, 
is that the substance of one sentence it contained, is also to 
be found in a letter written to the secretary, forming part of 
their correspondenc. Granted. Surely mr. Smith with all 
his effrontery, will not have the audacity to urge this as mat¬ 
ter of aggravation. Did not the National Intelligencer of the 
thirteenth november, which first announced the rupture, con¬ 
tain a repetition, almost in the very words used in mr. Smith’s 
letter, of what our government had previously addressed to 
the british minister ? Who is bold enough to deny this fact ? 
Thus far then is a perfect similarity of proceeding: but it 
is said that our government was at liberty to publish what 
they pleased against the british minister, by way of an ap¬ 
peal to the people, but that he had no similar right, and was 
bound to sit quietly down under whatever imputations it 
might be found convenient to cast upon him. That is to 
say, because Bob Smith’s ignorance and deficiency in every 
qualification requisite in a minister, enabled mr. Jackson to 
gain the vantage ground and expose the pettifogging attor- 




94 


ney to general ridicule, mr. Jackson’s hands are to be tied 
and his lips sealed, while the secretary seats himself at the 
desk of Sam. Harrison Smith, to write false and inflamma¬ 
tory paragraphs, and argue over again to the people, the to- 
picks of negotiation, at the same time converting to his use 
such parts of the previous correspondence, as he pleased. 

This might be a question of very doubtful issue, if sub¬ 
mitted to the judgment of diplomatick men. But, however 
it should be decided, there can be no question of the inde¬ 
cency and illiberality of a government availing itself of such 
an advantage over a foreign minister, thus insulated in our 
community, and at such a distance from the support that he 
might derive from his own government. But waving all 
other considerations, how does the matter stand as to fact f 
Did mr. Jackson publish this letter ? We have the 
most unquestionable authority for saying that he did not, and 
that it was done without his knowledge and privity. What 
then is to become of this pretended appeal to the people ? 
What of that part of the joint resolution of congress ground¬ 
ed upon this supposed publication of a paper which the se¬ 
nate voted to be an insult, without officially knowing its 
contents. So much for the indecent precipitation of a fac¬ 
tious demagogue, urged on by the still more unpardonable 
hastiness of a democratick servant of the publick, has plung¬ 
ed the good sense of our legislature. 

It will be of no avail to urge that a great, and the most 
enlightened part of that legislature was strenuously opposed 
to the resolutions and entered their protests against them in 
speeches fraught with talent, patriotism and logical correct^ 
ness. Still the stigma remains upon our national character* 
W e have to answer to posterity for having passed resolutions, 
neither of which can be supported by the evidence brought 
in support of them; one of which is known not to be founded 
on fact, and the other to rest entirely upon the constructive in¬ 
ference of the original mover, opposed to some of the most 




95 


lucid arguments that have ever been presented on the floor 
of any deliberative assembly. 

What, for instance, if the object of mr. Giles and his as¬ 
sociates had been any other than to mislead the people and 
to raise their passions by deceptive means, would have been 
the difficulty of calling for evidence to prove whether or not 
mr. Jackson did publish his letter to the consuls ? Why not 
call upon the printer for his declarations upon that point ? 
What prevented this but the fear that the result of such an 
enquiry tvould not satisfy the wishes of those who had made 
assertions, either knowing them to be groundless, to say the 
least, without duly ascertaining that there was a foundation 
for them. If, as we assert and confidently believe, the pub¬ 
lication of the circular did not take place by the agency or 
with the knowledge of mr. Jackson, what is there to become 
of the second branch of the resolution of congress ? What 
of the complaint, upon this subject, which is conveyed to the 
british government through mr. Pinkney ? Will it now ap¬ 
pear to the world that both congress and the executive have 
pledged themselves to an untruth ; and that although there 
can be little doubt of the british government readily com¬ 
plying with the request made by our executive that mr. 
Jackson may be immediately recalled, yet that the motives 
of that request are not, cannot be, those which our rulers 
have pretended, and that we may wait long enough before 
the communications which we may hope for through any 
other channel will arrive. 

Upon the general impropriety, the unprecedented mean¬ 
ness, of the publication of the letter to mr. Pinkney, now 
under consideration, we have yet a few words to say. This 
is a proceeding worthy of the worst acts of the worst period 
of a jacobin directory, and to such only can it be assimilat¬ 
ed. With what face can we accuse mr. Jackson of an ap¬ 
peal to the people of America, in the very same breath that 
we appeal against him, and against his government, to the 




96 


people of great Britain ? What can there be more mean, 
more cowardly than to issue to the world a volume of vul¬ 
gar and coarse invectives against that gentleman after de¬ 
priving him of every means of reply and defence, only to 
receive the plaudits of an enfuriated populace, of a popu¬ 
lace misled and roused to anger by the authors of these op¬ 
probrious charges ? Was it that our secretary was conscious 
of his own general inferiority, that he thus deprived the bri- 
tish minister of the privilege of verbal intercourse, because 
the pen of mr. Madison was better calculated than the 
tongue of Robert Smith to confound his arguments ? Was 
it because they had both failed in so doing that they were 
determined to issue a pleading, to which he had been be¬ 
fore hand deprived of the means of replying ? 

Thus it is that the fair fame, the peaceful habits, the en- 
creasing prosperity of nnr country are sacrificed to the un¬ 
hallowed purposes of democratick violence, and under par¬ 
tiality to an unprincipled and upstart tyrant. Thus it is that 
the cause of truth is brought a victim to the shrine of vulgar 
ambition. Volumes might be written upon so interesting a 
subject, but the writer of these pages acknowledges his ina¬ 
bility to add any thing in point of strength or argument to 
the unanswerable and therefore unanswered speech of one of 
our most distinguished statesmen, the illustrious represent¬ 
ative of the state of Massachusetts, Josiah Quincy. With 
his words we will conclude, recommending them to the 
deep reflection, the daily consideration, and finally to the 
unqualified adoption of our democratick president, and 
those who are put in authority under him. 

“ I declare distinctly that I oppose and vote against this 
resolution from no one consideration relative to Great Bri¬ 
tain and the United States; from none of friendship or 
animosity to any one man or any set of men; but simply 
and solely for this one reason, that in my conception, the 
assertion contained in this resolution is a falshood. 



97 


u But it is said that this resolution must be taken as u a test 
of patriotism.” To this I have but one answer. If patriot¬ 
ism ask me to assert a falshood, I have no hesitation in tell¬ 
ing patriotism, “ I am not prepared to make that sacrifice.” 
The duty we owe to our country is indeed among the most 
solemn and impressive of all obligations; yet, high as it may 
be, is nevertheless subordinate to that which we owe to 
that being, with whose name and character truth is identi¬ 
fied. In this respect I deem myself acting upon this reso¬ 
lution under a higher responsibility than either to this house 
or this people.” 


rixis. 



o 







%* 














































K » V* 

. * 


, -r * 


■YjlMF v 

^ ill <* 0 * v A '' 

c 0 N r ' * 

£L * 







^ C> V 


~ <$ % *3 •• ••’' • - ><$>' ■ %£w - $ % 

q v •?* ^ <r V + ( y *>. *. v-. - ^ * „v* 

^ <* A o '* " ' o v '< 



•< 

<\ 

ffc °o 0° + j* * c 



■ 0 ' c„ *?W»* S * ^ x \ '.’“W.' o 






> °° MT."'"/’’ ..'V'TrT’Vo 0 

° ^ ^ ® iilllfe, ”- % ^ v .' 
























% : o, t 


<• 4 > ’> 0 . A' 





'*°r V 

V* A 



' r\^ 


* o>' 










\ 




1 









lv *,«*£,*. ^ V. « - - .* Jy >A 

P . ^ : : . Jb '. ' v 0 > <%>. - \Ib |=? ; ,V> 

^ * A-v- * «v ^ ^ ^ ** V**0pV,^’ 

\ w ; 

4 *y 
Q> V*. 

v s 


*V. w •/r“ :; - '. ^ v ° ' 


IP 

/iur ^ c#* ✓*%< ^ ^ ^ .#^ \ 

\ > -vv^ * r\ i ^VtAs * x ^ 1 0l* 




<p A V t ° N c r o, ,o v v* , % ^ 

^ ^ * -r^v. x ^ v * ^.>: '- --. ■>* A 

^ 

= k° ©«. - 


jV* ^ 



✓ «x N 


¥ 


ft J 

t- * 0 N 0 A 

* > N o* * t * 0 , 


C b 


•Kc c 









































































